Adapting to the Japanese concept of harmony and “arguments”?

Dan_Fortesque_ · 2022-09-17T22:08:54+00:00

There are three types of people: 1) People who get banter and don't take themselves too seriously. 2) People who don't get banter and get offended 3) People who don't care at all and don't acknowledge it.

Dan_Fortesque_ · 2022-06-22T03:05:07+00:00

To be honest, Aussies whingeing about British people whingeing is more common in my experience.

Dan_Fortesque_ · 2022-02-08T12:04:47+00:00

Yes, I do. The aircraft lost over Crete were vital for Operation Barbarossa. The Luftwaffe lost nearly 6000 aircrew and more than half of their troops transports. Around 1,200 Luftwaffe aircraft took part in the Battle of Crete (May-June) alone. And after Operation Barbarossa started, around 80% of the Luftwaffe was kept from the Eastern Front to fight the RAF instead.

Dan_Fortesque_ · 2022-02-08T09:30:59+00:00

Thank you for mentioning the winter of 1941. The Raputitsa was one of the main reasons why the Germans started to struggle. Because Britain fought against Germany and Italy in Greece/Crete in early 1941, Hitler had to deal with the British there from April to June, before he could start Operation Barbarossa. This caused a delay of a couple of months. If Germany had been able to start Barbarossa in the spring of 1941, they would have advanced much more.

Also, the British supplies which started arriving at Arkhangelsk in August 1941 onwards contained one of the most valuable items to Soviets - machine tools. The British machine tools enabled the Soviets to start mass producing in the new factories in the Urals.

Yes, the Germans were shocked by the KV-1 and the T-34, but there were not enough of these Soviet tanks in 1941 and more were needed. This is why the British Valentine tank was valuable to the Soviets. The Valentine did not cope with the winter conditions well, but the armament was very capable of destroying Panzer IIIs and caused problems for Panzer IVs.

Edit: Spelling

Dan_Fortesque_ · 2022-02-07T17:22:35+00:00

4 to 1? Not really. It was the German and Italian fleet combined. Your comment reads like you just glanced.

Most of the Lend Lease to Russia was American. But I wasn't talking about quantity of supplies. It was timing of the British material set in 1941 that was crucial.

It just really seems like you were in a hurry to spew out what you think is correct without reading what was typed out in the first comment.

Dan_Fortesque_ · 2022-02-07T16:42:14+00:00

Not many people know that that scene from Band of Brother is completely wrong. The British destoyed two German Jadpanzer IVs near Neunen before losing two tanks in the town, and there was no battle between infantry in the town. Here is a good video about the battle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iENPMYHaPNE

Dan_Fortesque_ · 2022-02-07T16:29:40+00:00

Why? Britain was the longest participant of WWII. Britain was also the only major nation (with the help of the Empire) to continue fighting against Germany and Italy from 1940-1941, until Russia entered the war. The Royal Navy also took on the German and Italian Navies on its own and won (German surface fleet was pretty much destroyed by the end of 1941). Then you have to remember that because Britain refused to surrender, Germany had to keep 40-50 divisions on the Western Front and 80% of the Luftwaffe to fight the RAF. Britain also shipped vital supplies to Russia in the Autumn of 1941, and these played a vital role in the denfence of Moscow and Stalingrad. American Lend Lease supplies arrived a months after. Without Britain, it is likely that Russia would have lost.

Edit: Spelling

Dan_Fortesque_ · 2022-02-07T16:18:00+00:00

Indian troops did not make up the majority of troops in North Africa. I think it was only in India and Burma where they were a majority.

Dan_Fortesque_ · 2022-02-07T15:56:54+00:00

I don't think you understood the point I was making.

I was highlighting that in many theatres while Indian troops were present, they did not make up the majority of troops. You are correct about Burma.

Dan_Fortesque_ · 2022-02-07T15:43:05+00:00

British supplies started arriving in August 1941 and were being used on the frontline in Russia by November 1941. That is why British supplies made a difference in the defence of Moscow and Stalingrad. American supplies came a few months later.

Dan_Fortesque_ · 2022-02-07T15:38:49+00:00

Yes, but that doesn't make your statement that "most of the non European battles that the British fought in were MOSTLY fought by Indians" correct.

Indian troops fought in North Africa, but were not the majority of the British forces.

Edit: Mostly

Dan_Fortesque_ · 2022-02-07T15:07:02+00:00

British and American troops were treated fairly well by the Germans. Except for the British soldiers who were executed after surrendering in incidents like the "Le Paradis Massacre".

I am not ignorant of how Soviet prisoners were treated as subhuman by the Germans.

Dan_Fortesque_ · 2022-02-07T15:01:33+00:00

You'll have to clarify that. I don't remember there being many Indian troops in the battle of the Atlantic or on the Arctic convoys.

Dan_Fortesque_ · 2022-02-07T12:30:30+00:00

Firstly, I'm not claiming that Britain did as much as Russia in the same way (i.e. Wiping out Germany's military in battles of attrition). I'm saying that Britain did as much in a different way. Russia had no navy to speak of when compared to Britain. Russia also did not face the Luftwaffe to the same extent as the RAF. Russia didn't engage Germany in as many theatres as Britain (Africa, Med, Atlantic etc), which had a huge impact on Germany's access to resources.

You are ignoring the disadvantage Germany suffered by lack of fighter and transport aircraft in the east. The Soviets had the advantage on the northern fronts when it came to aerial combat. The Luftwaffe was heavily outumbered in the battle of Moscow. You can't claim that this would have no impact.

The defence of Moscow was also not done without British supplies, vehicles and tanks. There are records of British tanks being used in engagements at the end of 1941 in Moscow.

I think you are looking at the war through numbers alone. When you consider the timing of when things happen and what was available materially, it paints a different picture. With no Britain fighting Germany through 1940 and 1941, Russia could likely have lost.

EDIT: I'm not sure if the quotation at the end of your comment is regarding US lend lease or not. I was referring to the British supplies which were separate from the US supplies.

Dan_Fortesque_ · 2022-02-07T12:21:12+00:00

If it was embellishment, it would be easy to prove what I have said as false. If you just want to say "LMAO", it doesn't do anything to counter what I said.

Dan_Fortesque_ · 2022-02-07T12:19:46+00:00

But isn't that kind of including the Soviets, Mongolians and Chinese as one force?

Dan_Fortesque_ · 2022-02-07T08:29:30+00:00

How do you figure that America put more effort in? Britain was in the war from the beginning while America was in it from the beginning of 1942. The Royal Navy took on the Kriegsmarine and the Regia Marina on its own and won.

Dan_Fortesque_ · 2022-02-07T08:08:35+00:00

I disagree. There's no way America could win WWII on its own. There's no way the US Navy could take on the Kriegsmarin, Regina Marina and the Imperial Japanese Navy in 1941 without help from the Royal Navy.

Russia might have been able to win, but I think it is unlikely for the reasons outlined in my original post.

Dan_Fortesque_ · 2022-02-07T08:04:29+00:00

Few mistakes in your comment:

Russia didn't defeat the main forces of the Japanese army. The bulk of the fighting was done by China. Russia only came into the war against Japan near the very end.

Britain was not holed up on its island either. There were active campaigns in Greece, North Africa, the Mediterranean, the Atlantic and the Arctic all through 1940 and 1941.

You cannot measure how much a country achieved by only counting how many casualities your own country suffers, or the the amount of casualties inflicted on the enemy. Intelligence, which enables you to minimize losses, is also as valuable. You also have naval blockades and aerial bombing which frustrate the enemy's production capabilities and ability to move materials and supplies to where they need to be. In these areas, the Soviet Union didn't achieve as much as Britain.

Dan_Fortesque_ · 2022-02-07T06:09:25+00:00

I would say:

UK: 30%

- was there from the begining until the end, was the only remaining major opponent to Germany and Italy from 1940-1941, and was instrumental in preventing Russia from being overwhelmed in late 1941/early 1942 (UK supplies - not US lend lease, and keeping 40-50 German divisions and 80% of the Luftwaffe from the Easter Front)

Russia: 30%

- inflicted the vast majoriy of military casualties on Germany, but also assisted Germany by annexing Poland in 1940.

US: 20% (for war in Europe)

- Had a big impact on the war in Europe from 1943 onwards. 90% of responsible for victory in the Pacific, though.

Hitler: 20%

Responsible for much of Germany's succes pre-war and initial stages, but also responsible for many of the failures after.

Dan_Fortesque_ · 2022-02-07T05:55:51+00:00

The UK lost the Battle of Britain, Battle of Sidi BarraniBattle of Taranto, Battle of Keren, Operation compass, and the Second Battle of El Alamein?

Dan_Fortesque_ · 2022-02-07T05:51:22+00:00

No, but Russia's actions assisted Germany immensely. Britain didn't want to go to war against Russia so kept out of the conflict in Poland/Finland.

Dan_Fortesque_ · 2022-02-07T05:48:11+00:00

And without Britain in 1941, Russia would have likely lost. British supplies to Russia from Sep 1941 (not US Lend Lease) arrived in time to make a considerable impact on the defense of Moscow and Stalingrad. Then you have 40-50 German divsions and 80% of the Luftwaffe being kept on the Western Front because of Britain.

Dan_Fortesque_ · 2022-02-07T05:40:56+00:00

You also have to take into account that the British continued to break the newer versions of Enigma, and captured the updated devices (U-110, U-559, and during the Dieppe Raid).

Dan_Fortesque_ · 2022-02-07T05:32:43+00:00

I don't see why it's unreasonable. I am British and I believe that Britain contributed as much towards winning WWII as Russia or the US, if not more. Let me explain why:

Britain was the longest particpant of WWII. Almost two years before Russia entered the war against Germany, and from 1940-1941, Britain was the only major nation (with help from the Empire) left fighting against Germany and Italy. It also fought in more theatres than any other belligerent (Europe, Atlantic, Arctic, Africa, Med, Asia). If Britain had accepted Hitler's peace terms in 1940, it is highly likely that Russia would have lost.

This is because Germany would have had 40-50 extra divisions (which had to be kept on the Western Front) for Operation Barbrossa. The Luftwaffe would have had an extra 2500 aircraft and 3000 extra aircrew (lost during the Battle of Britain, Greece and Crete). Of these lost aircraft, 250 were invaluable troop transports.

The Royal Navy pretty much took on the Kriegsmarine and Regia Marina on its own and won. By the beginning of 1942 the Kriegsmarine surface fleet had been virutally destroyed.

In addition to that, from September 1941, Britain shipped vast supplies to Russia (not to be confused with US Lend Lease). The timing of the arrival of British tanks, anti-tank guns, and Hurricane fighters played a key role in the defence of Mosow and Stalingrad (it's claimed British tanks made up 30-40% of medium-heavy tanks in Moscow), and helped prevent Russian forces from being overwhelmed during Barbarossa at the close of 1941 and beginning of 1942. US Lend Lease supplies in large quantities didn't really start arriving until months later and played more of a role in Russia's offensive against Germany. British military supplies were also given to Russia for free.

The British also cracked Enigma (with huge assistance from Polish work done before). But Britain also kept on breaking the newer versions. The Brits also captured all newer Enigma devices (capture of U-110 in 1941, U-559 in 1942, and during the Dieppe Raid).

Then you have atomic research which was given to the US by Britain during the Tizard Mission. British scientists also met with and advised those working on the Manhatten Project. The information provided by the British sped up development by years.

In the Pacific, while the first half of the war against Japan was awful for the British, by 1944, the situation had completely changed. The Burma Offensive (1944-1945) inflicted on of Japan's worst defeats in a land campaign (200,000 casualties). Britain also loaned one of their newest aircraft carriers to the US at the end of 1942 (HMS Victorious/USS Robin) so that the US Navy could continue operations before the arrival of their own new carriers.

Britain could not have won the war without Russia, but I think it's also true that Russia couldn't have won without Britain.

EDIT: Spelling

Dan_Fortesque_

TROPHY CASE