Site Search:
 
TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

1930-US plan to destroy UK with chemical weapons/bombs
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Off-Topic Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
aq8knyus



Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Location: London

PostPosted: Thu Apr 17, 2014 4:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Steelrails wrote:
aq8knyus wrote:
Obviously the war ended in 1918, but after the mauling the Americans took in the Argonne it was only the British and Imperial forces that were capable of further action at wars end



It is not irrelevant that using mid-19th century technology the British were able to move close to twenty thousand men in a matter of months. They were also capable of transporting 10s of thousands of troops to South Africa using turn of the century technology. Are you really suggesting that transporting a few divisions in the first few weeks and then later hundreds of thousands over a period of some months was beyond the capability of the British Empire? They did exactly that in both world wars, it is not even a debate that the BE had the logistics to move armies between continents, it is an historical fact.

Plus I am not saying they would have moved 2.5 million Indians, the British Army could swell to 5 million if needed.

In terms of the naval war, if the Americans had lost an entire fleet it would have been similarly disastrous for their war effort, if the US loses the better part of three fleets in quick succession as you suggest then it would take at least a year to make good those losses.

I agree that losing multiple fleets would be devastating to the RN, but you are overstating the US capabilities if you believe that they could have built multiple battle fleets from scratch in less than a year after losing not only tonnage, but more importantly skilled seamen and officers. Even in 1945 the US had more hulls and was of course bigger, but the RN was by no means dwarfed in any class save merchant vessels.

The British did possess the capability to build many warships and take huge losses. The US navy even at its greatest extent did not possess a navy that could beat the fully mobilized RN by numbers alone, it would have been decided by the luck of battle.

Plus where are the US bases near Britain that are going to win the naval war a few miles of the British mainland? British forces would be concentrated and have the full support of the entire RAF, the US would have to travel across the entire ocean as they have no bases close to Britain and would rely solely on naval air power. Their war against Japan was fought on the basis of getting bases from which to bomb and possibly invade Japan, how would they do that with Britain? What Islands lie off the coast of Britain that could have been used jump off point for the US naval forces to strangle Britain?

In the Med you have a large British fleet and strongpoints at Gibraltar, Malta, Cyprus, Corfu, Egypt and Palestine. They also control the Suez Canal and the Red Sea from British Somaliland, Aden, Sudan and Oman. How is an American naval expeditionary force going to break all that without even a single naval base in the region? I agree Bermuda et al would be in danger, but it is not the 18th century, those colonies were of no importance to British economic strength. Also do you know how narrow the straights are? A huge American fleet would at the very least be cut down to size by a well-armed squadron of ships and the huge naval guns at Gibraltar.

The Japanese, German and Italian navies combined were indeed superior to that of the US in the 1930s. Given four years the Americans could build a superior fleet, as long there weren’t significant losses, but a war would unlikely last that long anyway.

As for the garrison, if tensions had reached boiling point the garrison would obviously had been reinforced. The US plan was to take it quickly, but if properly reinforced as a precaution the chances of an amphibious landing working against an enemy who still effectively contested the sea would simply not have been successful.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steelrails



Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

PostPosted: Thu Apr 17, 2014 6:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
It is not irrelevant that using mid-19th century technology the British were able to move close to twenty thousand men in a matter of months.


That's 1/100th of the the 2.5 million men you are talking about, without facing attacks. And 20,000 British troops would have been mincemeat for the Army of the Potomac or The Army of Northern Virginia. And that's with America divided. Good grief, imagine a combined Union-Confederate army led by Lee, Grant, Jackson, and Sherman against that force.

Quote:
Are you really suggesting that transporting a few divisions in the first few weeks and then later hundreds of thousands over a period of some months was beyond the capability of the British Empire? They did exactly that in both world wars, it is not even a debate that the BE had the logistics to move armies between continents, it is an historical fact.


With relative mastery of the seas and US maritime support. Also, those forces would be coming in piecemeal, not as one. The US would have waltzed over Halifax the way the Japanese did to Singapore, and much more easily as well for Halifax is nowhere near as far from the US as Singapore was from Japan.

Quote:
In terms of the naval war, if the Americans had lost an entire fleet it would have been similarly disastrous for their war effort


You mean like at Pearl Harbor?

Quote:
if the US loses the better part of three fleets in quick succession as you suggest then it would take at least a year to make good those losses.


Battleship Row+4 flattops+Savo Island= 2 fleets worth by the fall of '42 and the US stormed back with 14 Essex-class ships by 1944, with 10 more having their keel's laid.

Quote:
Even in 1945 the US had more hulls and was of course bigger, but the RN was by no means dwarfed in any class


14 Essex-class + 8 Independence-class+ 3 unsunk pre-war carriers (assuming equal losses, that leaves Enterprise, Saratoga, and Ranger), means the RN was DWARFED in terms of aircraft carriers. The US also had a 3:2 strength advantage in submarines.

Quote:
The British did possess the capability to build many warships and take huge losses. The US navy even at its greatest extent did not possess a navy that could beat the fully mobilized RN by numbers alone, it would have been decided by the luck of battle.


The Royal Navy didn't face a navy on the level of a concentrated United States Navy. The Royal Navy's supply lines would be constantly under attack. The US' supply lines would be virtually unmolested through the Western Hemisphere. They wouldn't need a navy to supply their navy. The Royal Navy would.

Quote:
Plus where are the US bases near Britain that are going to win the naval war a few miles of the British mainland? British forces would be concentrated and have the full support of the entire RAF, the US would have to travel across the entire ocean as they have no bases close to Britain and would rely solely on naval air power.


They'd probably do the same thing they did against the Japanese- island hop. First the Maritime Provinces, then Iceland. Invade the Azores, Canaries, and Madeira to threaten Gibraltar. Then probably the Faroe and Orkney Islands. They may even have chosen to invade Ireland. In the face of US attacks on its naval commerce, virtually no vital resources on the home islands, and a mangled fleet, the Japanese Homeland was utterly at the mercy of the United States. It would have taken time, but the terrible arithmetic meant that the United Kingdom would have eventually capitulated.

Quote:
In the Med you have a large British fleet and strongpoints at Gibraltar, Malta, Cyprus, Corfu, Egypt and Palestine. They also control the Suez Canal and the Red Sea from British Somaliland, Aden, Sudan and Oman. How is an American naval expeditionary force going to break all that without even a single naval base in the region?


Gibraltar. It falls, the rest of those dominoes fall. Even a short-term disruption in the route would be devastating to the British Isles.

Quote:
A huge American fleet would at the very least be cut down to size by a well-armed squadron of ships and the huge naval guns at Gibraltar.


It wouldn't have to enter. It could just wait outside. Any British convoy/task force would already have its "T" crossed as it emerged. To say nothing of the fact that the Sea Hurricane and Seafire, while effective for convoy protection and Hunter-Killer actions, are utterly unsuitable for offensive carrier-based operations due to their short range compared to say, the Wildcat/Hellcat/Corsair. And the Royal Navy's torpedo and dive-bombing planes would prove disastrous against US fighters. They were even more ineffective than the Devastators, Buffaloes, and Vindicators that initially faced the Japanese. Could you imagine Fairey Battles, Swordfish, and Fulmars against Wildcats? The Fleet Air Arm never developed a truly competent carrier-borne bomber/torpedo plane until the very end of the war with the Fairey Firefly. Also, early Fleet Air Arm fighter doctrine was severely hampered by the demand for all fighters to be two-seaters for carrier operations.

Quote:
The Japanese, German and Italian navies combined were indeed superior to that of the US in the 1930s. Given four years the Americans could build a superior fleet, as long there weren’t significant losses, but a war would unlikely last that long anyway.


A second world war wouldn't last four years?

Quote:
As for the garrison, if tensions had reached boiling point the garrison would obviously had been reinforced. The US plan was to take it quickly, but if properly reinforced as a precaution the chances of an amphibious landing working against an enemy who still effectively contested the sea would simply not have been successful.


You don't have to necessarily even assault the position. Just cut it off from supplies.

Every argument you are making is the same argument the Japanese made when making their case for war against the U.S. However the words of Isoroku Yamamoto would ring true for the British as well.

"In the first six to twelve months of a war with the United States I will run wild and win victory upon victory. But then, if the war continues after that, I have no expectation of success"

And its unlikely that England would enjoy any major victories in Canada.

The unfortunate truth is that at no point would England ever be able to launch a sustained, successful attack on America and thus would never effect her industrial capacity and natural resources. All the United States would have to do is bottle up Gibraltar for 3 months after dispatching Canada and the British Empire would crumble to dust.

It wouldn't be easy. I'm sure the British would be tenacious defenders of the Home Isles. The Royal Navy and Fleet Air Arm would be no pushover, but as I said, the "terrible arithmetic" and lack of domestic resources means that the British would eventually capitulate. Britain would be in the fight of its life, America could theoretically fight the war with one hand tied behind its back supplying butter with its guns and still have a fair chance, especially if it secured an early victory at sea.

Of course this just a vacuum war between the U.S. and British. Things could wildly fluctuate based on France, Nazi Germany, the USSR, and Japan. If England secured the support of Nazi Germany and was able to re-establish the Anglo-Japanese alliance, America might not be defeated, but victory would be a hard-pressed thing. Conversely, if America was able to dangle territorial gains in front of Hitler and the Japanese refused to ever enter again into an alliance with the British and instead agreed with the Americans to divide the Pacific, then the British would certainly be at their end within a couple years. If the British, French, and Germans came to an understanding, Gibraltar would not be the vital lynchpin it is in this scenario.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
aq8knyus



Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Location: London

PostPosted: Thu Apr 17, 2014 10:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Steelrails wrote:
Quote:
It is not irrelevant that using mid-19th century technology the British were able to move close to twenty thousand men in a matter of months.


Bottle up Gibraltar? From where? How would you sustain a blockade when your nearest base is thousands of miles away? If you take the Azores and/ or the Canaries you declare war on Spain and/or Portugal and gift the British Empire the entire Iberian Peninsula as an ally. If your navy just sits there in the middle of the sea doing nothing a) where are the supplies going to come from? B) What is stopping bombers blowing the hell out of your relatively static navy? You cannot blockade a place that is thousands of miles from your nearest base or at least not until you have already won naval superiority.

Again you are misunderstanding the war against Japan, the invasion of Malay only came after the sinking of Force X which had no air cover because of the complacency and stupidity of the British commanders. If war was likely Halifax would have been reinforced by regular troops and supported by naval and air units. You are not going to successfully invade until at least all naval units are destroyed and full mastery is achieved, we saw in WWII that amphibious invasions were very difficult to pull off even with complete naval and air superiority.

The point is that the naval war would have to be won before an amphibious invasion of Halifax could have been successful. Sure an American assault along the St. Lawrence and against Winnipeg might have been unstoppable and they would just roll over them in a couple of weeks, but the operation against Nova Scotia was a non-starter.

In terms of fleet losses, yes, I do mean Pearl Harbor. The US losses at Pearl Harbor were tiny, a handful of cruisers and destroyers plus two battleships. You were talking about the US losing an entire fleet one after the other and still coming back for more. If the US had indeed lost two or three fleets in quick succession she would have probably have sued for peace rather than build yet another navy.

The construction times were measured in years just as it was for the RN, if either had lost an entire fleet in one battle it would have been disastrous. The RN built nearly two dozen fleet aircraft carriers during the war, they were outnumbered by the Americans, but not by the ratio you are imagining.

Also you are wrong the US too would have had to divide its responsibilities there is no way it could leave the Pacific undefended and focused solely on the Atlantic. The RN squadrons in the East were weak, but not so weak that the US could drain all its forces from that theatre and focus solely on winning the Atlantic and strangling Britain. They would also have been mindful of leaving themselves too lightly defended in the Pacific in case the Japanese got ideas.

The naval war would have been balanced with neither side able to strangle the other, although raids by British naval units could have caused superficial damage. The battles would, like Midway, have been decided by luck.

Finally, your island hopping idea was hilarious! Going from the Maritime Provinces to Iceland isn’t a hop, it’s a triple jump! How would you have taken Iceland? Even if you massed those 14 Essex class aircraft carriers (which you didn’t have in the 1930s) you would still not have had any bases near to launch an invasion. Especially as those waters would be in the backyard of the Home Fleet based at Scapa Flow! Furthermore, in reality the British conquered Iceland with ease during WWII, if there was even a whiff of an American invasion they would have been seized ditto for Ireland.

Plus even if you had taken Iceland, how are you going to bomb the heart of British Industry based in the North of England and London? How would you interdict shipping and supplies coming into the south of England? Every time the US navy would have ventured south it would be mauled by wave after wave of land based bombers and cruiser squadron after cruiser squadron based off the coast of every major port in the UK. That is to say nothing of the Home Fleet and the Channel Fleet!

Also remember that the North Atlantic isn’t the Pacific Ocean, large parts of it can be covered by ground based aircraft. Your carriers can be sunk, Nova Scotia, Iceland and the UK cannot.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steelrails



Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

PostPosted: Thu Apr 17, 2014 5:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Bottle up Gibraltar? From where? How would you sustain a blockade when your nearest base is thousands of miles away?


It would take time and defeat of the British fleet, but it could certainly be done, especially with U.S. carrier strength.

Quote:
If you take the Azores and/ or the Canaries you declare war on Spain and/or Portugal and gift the British Empire the entire Iberian Peninsula as an ally


An Iberian peninsula recovering from the Spanish Civil War? The U.S. could afford to do so. Spain and Portugal would be about as vital an ally as Poland.

Quote:
What is stopping bombers blowing the hell out of your relatively static navy? You cannot blockade a place that is thousands of miles from your nearest base or at least not until you have already won naval superiority.


Yes, that's the end game. Defeat Canada (easily attainable). Destroy the British fleet, bottle up Gibraltar. Britain is finished. Kaput. She would have no capacity to sustain war.

Quote:
If war was likely Halifax would have been reinforced by regular troops and supported by naval and air units. You are not going to successfully invade until at least all naval units are destroyed and full mastery is achieved, we saw in WWII that amphibious invasions were very difficult to pull off even with complete naval and air superiority


Halifax is accessible by land. And everything you posted about Gibraltar and the UK would be magnified in Canada. Heck, the US could just seize Moncton and sever the land line to Halifax and render it irrelevant. it's position is clearly untenable against an adversary like the United States.

Quote:
In terms of fleet losses, yes, I do mean Pearl Harbor. The US losses at Pearl Harbor were tiny, a handful of cruisers and destroyers plus two battleships.


No cruisers were sunk. Only one destroyer, the Shaw. The U.S. lost or had put hors de combat Arizona, Oklahoma, Nevada, West Virginia, and California.

Quote:
If the US had indeed lost two or three fleets in quick succession she would have probably have sued for peace rather than build yet another navy


A deep misreading of the American mindset at the time. Those losses would make America fight that much harder.

Quote:
The RN built nearly two dozen fleet aircraft carriers during the war, they were outnumbered by the Americans, but not by the ratio you are imagining


Of actual frontline, TRUE fleet carriers, the Royal Navy possessed the Ark Royal, the 4 of the Illustrious-class, and 2 of the Implacable-class. The Courageous-class were glorified light carriers with a fleet carrier label slapped on them, having barely half the number of aircraft of say, Yorktown. The other carriers laid down were either light carriers or escort carriers.

Quote:
Also you are wrong the US too would have had to divide its responsibilities there is no way it could leave the Pacific undefended and focused solely on the Atlantic. The RN squadrons in the East were weak, but not so weak that the US could drain all its forces from that theatre and focus solely on winning the Atlantic and strangling Britain. They would also have been mindful of leaving themselves too lightly defended in the Pacific in case the Japanese got ideas.


This is true, but the U.S. would have made sure to concentrate against the most important foe. Also, unlike the Britain, America had the industrial capacity and the population to wage two separate wars.

Quote:
The battles would, like Midway, have been decided by luck.


The difference being that the U.S. could make good its losses and become even larger, whereas Great Britain, like the Japanese, could not.

Quote:
Finally, your island hopping idea was hilarious! Going from the Maritime Provinces to Iceland isn’t a hop, it’s a triple jump! How would you have taken Iceland? Even if you massed those 14 Essex class aircraft carriers (which you didn’t have in the 1930s) you would still not have had any bases near to launch an invasion. Especially as those waters would be in the backyard of the Home Fleet based at Scapa Flow! Furthermore, in reality the British conquered Iceland with ease during WWII, if there was even a whiff of an American invasion they would have been seized ditto for Ireland.


The same way the U.S. island-hopped until eventually they were on the Japanese home islands dictating terms to Tokyo. It took four long years, but they did it through attrition.

Time would always be on America's side.

Quote:
Plus even if you had taken Iceland, how are you going to bomb the heart of British Industry based in the North of England and London? How would you interdict shipping and supplies coming into the south of England? Every time the US navy would have ventured south it would be mauled by wave after wave of land based bombers and cruiser squadron after cruiser squadron based off the coast of every major port in the UK. That is to say nothing of the Home Fleet and the Channel Fleet!


The same way we did it to the Japanese. Do you not see the parallels between your strategic situation and that of Japan? Do you not see the implacability and terrible arithmetic of American industrial capacity vs. your own? Every line you are saying is what Tojo fed Hirohito and the rest of the Japanese. "We just have to destroy their fleet" "Where can they base from to attack the Japanese islands?" "Our aircraft would protect our skies and sink their ships", "we are too far away for them to attack" and ignored the capabilities of American industrial power and how dependent they were on tenuous supply lines importing raw materials to the home islands.

America may start slow, but it has time on its side. It has size and raw materials on its side. It has virtual invulnerability for its people and industry. Its industry is not dependent on raw materials coming from 1000s of miles away. The raw materials are 10 miles away. It is not merely self-sufficient, it has an abundance. England can be strangled 1000 miles away, just as the Japanese were. The Americans don't even have to be within 500 miles of the British Isles to grind your industry to a halt. Britain would have to invade and hold the U.S. to stop American industry, an impossibility.

You are saying that Britain needs to win this battle and that America "can't do this". That is unsteady ground. America did island hop. America did strangle an island nation's commerce. America did push its forces across thousands of miles of ocean to the doorstep of its enemy.

In the end, America just has to let the clock tick.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
aq8knyus



Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Location: London

PostPosted: Fri Apr 18, 2014 9:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Steelrails wrote:


Do you not see the parallels between your strategic situation and that of Japan?



This is where you are going wrong, Britain isn’t Japan and the North Atlantic isn’t the Western Pacific.

In a possible war outlined in the OP, Britain doesn’t have to worry about 1000s of miles of supply routes because Europe wouldn’t be overrun by an antagonist.

Unlike Japan Britain was/is self sufficient in energy.

Britain was the most efficiently mobilised country during WWII, they only relied on Atlantic convoys because Germany had overrun Europe. In a potential war with America Britain could source any shortfalls in supplies from Europe.

Even if you don’t believe France would have taken a side, believe that they would welcome the chance to sell huge stores for a healthy profit.

The Japanese did not have the strategic depth of the British Empire, it owned entire continents, dominated the trade with China, had powerful regional allies. The Japanese conquered vast swathes of the Eastern Empire and yet it still didn’t even *beep* the beating heart of British imperial power. Even if the US conquers one giant landmass, they would still have to take ten more.

The Japanese at their height never had that sought of depth, in fact all their expansion only ever weakened their economic and military power.

The supply lines from the colonies to Britain were much more secure than the Japanese supply routes. Firstly, British bases and strong points littered the Indian Ocean and troops from South African, Australian and India could be moved to counter any threat. These forces could be supported by large troop numbers from Britain because remeber in this scenario the British are freed from the need to build a huge army to fight on in the ETO. Not only that, but the Med was at both ends dominated by British land, air and sea power, it was a closed shop that even the combined naval, air and sea power of Germany and Italy couldn’t break

That was why I found your ‘bottle up Gibraltar’ idea so absurd. The US has no logistical support for a blockade when their nearest bases are thousands of miles away and would be completely at the mercy of land based air power. Your retort about taking the Azores and Canaries was even more absurd, not because those empires had large fleets, but because British forces would then have access to an even greater number of naval and air bases from which to pummel the US forces.

Plus what is stopping British forces from unloading at Barcelona transporting across land to Bilbao and then shipping off again to the UK, or if not through Spain then through France.

The RN was far superior to the IJN in terms of size and unlike the IJN the RN grew by a factor of two during the war despite the huge damage caused by German air raids and threat of invasion. The RN had at all times a greater number of cruisers and destroyers as unlike the Japanese they actually placed a greater emphasis on defending supply convoys.

The RN was unarguably far better at ASW than the Japanese, so please disabuse yourself of the notion that the US could have been similarly successful in a submarine warfare campaign against the RN. The RN Merchant Navy was not only the largest in the world in 1939, representing 33% of total tonnage, it was also capable of fighting on despite huge losses and making good on those losses.

I have seen various figures, but the RN Merchant navy lost nearly 12 million tons of shipping and yet still fought on effectively. The Japanese on the other hand were virtually wiped out by their smaller losses.

Unlike Japan Britain does not have a convenient string of island chains that can be hopped across and place an adversary a few hundred miles of the coast. The Iceland option not only flew in the face of historical reality, but also common sense. Taking Iceland would be a doddle for the RN and considering the proximity and the power of land based air power operating from both Scotland and Iceland itself, there is no way that even a weakened RN couldn’t prevent its seizure from a US navy whose nearest base was in Canada.

The US would not be able to firebomb London, or strike at the heart of British industry, or disable the huge shipyards, or interdict shipping in the Med, or deprive the Empire of its economic heartland in the Indian Ocean, or destroy the RN Merchant Navy piecemeal through commerce raiding without bases reasonably close to the British Isles.

The only similarity between the British and Japanese was that both were island nations and that it would take nothing short of atomic weaponry to beat either of them.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steelrails



Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

PostPosted: Fri Apr 18, 2014 12:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Do you (and the peanut gallery) want the long or the short rebuttal to this? And were you buzzed when you wrote this? Not that that is reason for scorn, as I post buzzed all the time, but there is a dramatic difference in writing quality in your most recent post. And it is like, a Friday.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
aq8knyus



Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Location: London

PostPosted: Fri Apr 18, 2014 9:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Steelrails wrote:
Do you (and the peanut gallery) want the long or the short rebuttal to this? And were you buzzed when you wrote this? Not that that is reason for scorn, as I post buzzed all the time, but there is a dramatic difference in writing quality in your most recent post. And it is like, a Friday.


It is a posting on Daves that will likely only be read by one maybe two people. I apologise for my quick response, but I am not going to spend time proof reading a post. Is there any part that was so poorly written you have no idea what I am talking about?

Also I wasn't buzzed, it was just that there are so many differences betwen the Empire's situation and Japan in WWII that it was difficult to know when to stop writing.

Alternatively if you are bored of the subject you dont have to write a response. It is counterfactual history, it is not like anyone 'wins' the argument.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chellovek



Joined: 29 Feb 2008

PostPosted: Fri Apr 25, 2014 11:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Not sure if it has been pointed out above, so apologies in advance if that's so (but one can't be too sure with you 'lol'sters)-

I learned it that such war plans were made in those years, on both sides, but that they were made for the sake of thoroughness since there was no alliance or "special relationship" at that time. It was never seriously believed that such a war would ever happen, but one always needs a plan in case the unthinkable happens. It was just an academic exercise- "What should we do if...?"

The British view was that such a war would be unwinnable for the UK and that the Royal Navy should inflict as much damage as possible, make it such a costly war for the US to press, and then sue for peace as soon as possible.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
robbie_davies



Joined: 16 Jun 2013

PostPosted: Sat Apr 26, 2014 2:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am sure at the time, the French would have sided with the British with any war with the United States as the French had shared interests with the British in Africa, SE Asia, The West Indies and the Suez and no doubt would have had their eyes on the Panama Canal.

The US would have had their work cut out with the British, with the French navy as well... well, I will let you work that one out.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mickey Jeffries



Joined: 20 Jan 2014

PostPosted: Sat Apr 26, 2014 5:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Them Yanks can whip anybody. At least that's what they like to believe. Didn't they also win world war I & II? They're parasites. Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Stain



Joined: 08 Jan 2014

PostPosted: Sat Apr 26, 2014 6:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mickey Jeffries wrote:
Them Yanks can whip anybody. At least that's what they like to believe. Didn't they also win world war I & II? They're parasites. Smile


I'm surprised you didn't mention Vietnam. You need a new weapon.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chellovek



Joined: 29 Feb 2008

PostPosted: Sat Apr 26, 2014 11:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

robbie_davies wrote:
I am sure at the time, the French would have sided with the British with any war with the United States as the French had shared interests with the British in Africa, SE Asia, The West Indies and the Suez and no doubt would have had their eyes on the Panama Canal.

The US would have had their work cut out with the British, with the French navy as well... well, I will let you work that one out.


Interesting but I personally don't necessarily think so.

The circumstances of any potential war were seen as being similar to those of 1812, if the UK tried to forcefully stop a neutral USA from trading with Europe during a general European war. It would have depended on whose side France was on at the time.

Like I say, on both sides it was never imagined as being a full-blown fight to the end.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
robbie_davies



Joined: 16 Jun 2013

PostPosted: Sat Apr 26, 2014 11:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

chellovek wrote:
robbie_davies wrote:
I am sure at the time, the French would have sided with the British with any war with the United States as the French had shared interests with the British in Africa, SE Asia, The West Indies and the Suez and no doubt would have had their eyes on the Panama Canal.

The US would have had their work cut out with the British, with the French navy as well... well, I will let you work that one out.


Interesting but I personally don't necessarily think so.

The circumstances of any potential war were seen as being similar to those of 1812, if the UK tried to forcefully stop a neutral USA from trading with Europe during a general European war. It would have depended on whose side France was on at the time.

Like I say, on both sides it was never imagined as being a full-blown fight to the end.


The war that never happened in 1930 would have been over the US wanting to trade in Africa, the Carribean and Asia (as well as Europe of course) and 'The Sterling Area' which the Americans hated dealing with. In my opinion - with the French sharing so many interests with the British in 1930, the French would have realised they would have been next, that and the fact that France has been a solid ally of Britain's since the beginning of the 20th century. It would be harder to see France staying out of this bunfight that throwing their lot in with the British with so much for them to lose.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chellovek



Joined: 29 Feb 2008

PostPosted: Sat Apr 26, 2014 5:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

robbie_davies wrote:
chellovek wrote:
robbie_davies wrote:
I am sure at the time, the French would have sided with the British with any war with the United States as the French had shared interests with the British in Africa, SE Asia, The West Indies and the Suez and no doubt would have had their eyes on the Panama Canal.

The US would have had their work cut out with the British, with the French navy as well... well, I will let you work that one out.


Interesting but I personally don't necessarily think so.

The circumstances of any potential war were seen as being similar to those of 1812, if the UK tried to forcefully stop a neutral USA from trading with Europe during a general European war. It would have depended on whose side France was on at the time.

Like I say, on both sides it was never imagined as being a full-blown fight to the end.


The war that never happened in 1930 would have been over the US wanting to trade in Africa, the Carribean and Asia (as well as Europe of course) and 'The Sterling Area' which the Americans hated dealing with. In my opinion - with the French sharing so many interests with the British in 1930, the French would have realised they would have been next, that and the fact that France has been a solid ally of Britain's since the beginning of the 20th century. It would be harder to see France staying out of this bunfight that throwing their lot in with the British with so much for them to lose.


Yeah I think you're right in saying it would have started over trading rights in other parts of the world, but to call France a "solid ally" is stretching it a bit. The Entente Cordiale wasn't an alliance as such, it was a settlement of colonial spheres of influence, the same thing happened with the UK and Russia too. It was a settling of differences so that two traditional rivals, and Russia, could focus on the perceived threat of Germany.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steelrails



Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

PostPosted: Sat Apr 26, 2014 5:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oops...forgot to reply..

Quote:
Unlike Japan Britain was/is self sufficient in energy.


You mean it was entirely self-sufficient for ALL materials necessary to wage war? Including petroleum and rubber?

Quote:
they only relied on Atlantic convoys because Germany had overrun Europe. In a potential war with America Britain could source any shortfalls in supplies from Europe.


Well, part of the premise of this is that we're going to consider the two countries in a vacuum. Once we start bringing in European nations trading with each other we also start considering things like "Whose side would Germany be on?".

And your point, while true, would also be unsustainable for Britain, long-term.

Quote:
Even if the US conquers one giant landmass, they would still have to take ten more.


I don't think so. If the British home islands go down, the rest of the empire would disintegrate. Colonial forces wouldn't be able to maintain their strength, and their domestic populations would likely rebel and overthrow them.

Quote:
Firstly, British bases and strong points littered the Indian Ocean and troops from South African, Australian and India could be moved to counter any threat. These forces could be supported by large troop numbers from Britain because remeber in this scenario the British are freed from the need to build a huge army to fight on in the ETO


These troops don't move at the click of a mouse button. That's a huge logistical undertaking. And as was said, the initial battles would take place on Canada and it is not likely the British could just pour in troops. The remaining battles would largely be fought at sea and at various islands, where a "pouring troops in" strategy is unfeasible.

Quote:
The US has no logistical support for a blockade when their nearest bases are thousands of miles away and would be completely at the mercy of land based air power. Your retort about taking the Azores and Canaries was even more absurd, not because those empires had large fleets, but because British forces would then have access to an even greater number of naval and air bases from which to pummel the US forces.


Yes, these things take time. Preceding all of this, you do things like island hop and work at destroying the British fleet.

Also, a greater number of bases is a diminishing return. Each base doesn't spawn a force like in some computer game, it just gives you different locations from which to maintain and support forces. You have to concentrate your forces somewhere.

Quote:
Plus what is stopping British forces from unloading at Barcelona transporting across land to Bilbao and then shipping off again to the UK, or if not through Spain then through France.


It becomes highly inefficient to do that.

Quote:
The RN was far superior to the IJN in terms of size and unlike the IJN the RN grew by a factor of two during the war despite the huge damage caused by German air raids and threat of invasion. The RN had at all times a greater number of cruisers and destroyers as unlike the Japanese they actually placed a greater emphasis on defending supply convoys.


The RN grew by a factor of two and the IJN did not because the US Navy put the IJN at the bottom of the ocean while working WITH the RN to secure its North Atlantic trade routes.

Quote:
The RN was unarguably far better at ASW than the Japanese, so please disabuse yourself of the notion that the US could have been similarly successful in a submarine warfare campaign against the RN. The RN Merchant Navy was not only the largest in the world in 1939, representing 33% of total tonnage, it was also capable of fighting on despite huge losses and making good on those losses.


The Germans conducted a damaging submarine warfare campaign that wasn't ultimately decided until America's entry into the war. You're ignoring the tremendous contribution the United States played in securing Britain's convoys and providing it with material support.

Quote:
The Iceland option not only flew in the face of historical reality, but also common sense. Taking Iceland would be a doddle for the RN and considering the proximity and the power of land based air power operating from both Scotland and Iceland itself, there is no way that even a weakened RN couldn’t prevent its seizure from a US navy whose nearest base was in Canada.

The US would not be able to firebomb London, or strike at the heart of British industry, or disable the huge shipyards, or interdict shipping in the Med, or deprive the Empire of its economic heartland in the Indian Ocean, or destroy the RN Merchant Navy piecemeal through commerce raiding without bases reasonably close to the British Isles.


Never say never. You say it would be impossible for the U.S. to land forces on Iceland or other places because it's nearest base is in Canada. Yet, the U.S. was able to seize islands and conduct campaigns across the Pacific from bases that were thousands of miles away as well.

But the conclusion that Britain has some sort of endless manpower and industrial capacity is ludicrous. Certainly not in comparison to the United States.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Off-Topic Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 3 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2013 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International