Well in his defence he invaded in June, but unfortunately that didn't leave them enough time to break the Soviet defences before the winter set in. If he had attacked earlier in the spring though, as he had originally intended, things might have gone down a bit differently...berethond said:
Poll: Can England be invaded
- Thread starter Blitzkrieg8
- Start date
How about this.ElephantGuts said:
No one invades russia.
Ever.
'Cause if the winter doesn't kill you, then you will be suffocated by the pure unrelenting mass of red.
Fair enough, but still, since 1066 no invasion has ever actually reached our borders. The only two times anyone has ever come close to invading and reaching our borders were during WW2 (mainly the Battle of Britain), and the Spanish Armada, which we defeated despite being outnumbered by I believe odds even worse than those you describe for the UK and US. We're no strangers to long odds and we still always triumph, the odds were longer than that for the Battle of Britain and we still won. And do you guys have the Eurofighter Typhoon? Nope. Thought not. It happens to have technology equal to or possibly greater than most American aircraft, and I know because I've actually been in one and studied the workings of said aircraft. Thank you, RAF trainingBulletinmybrain said:
Honestly, of course we could be beaten if there were the significant numbers. The main defense our country has, and has had for a while, is why?
Our country has few resources, a lot less political power than we like to think we have. You would kill most of our well trained armed forces taking the island, so that is out and in today's climate, potato farmers in Peru have nukes. Not to mention that by destroying England you have the potential to cause one of the worst financial crisis for a long time, by destroying our stock market
There is literally nothing worth invading us for. You would be trading precious resources, and plenty of lives for a cold, sodden and windswept rock.
Our country has few resources, a lot less political power than we like to think we have. You would kill most of our well trained armed forces taking the island, so that is out and in today's climate, potato farmers in Peru have nukes. Not to mention that by destroying England you have the potential to cause one of the worst financial crisis for a long time, by destroying our stock market
There is literally nothing worth invading us for. You would be trading precious resources, and plenty of lives for a cold, sodden and windswept rock.
Pfft. Royal Marines, SAS and 28 million british armed forces say otherwise. 90 ships of the Royal Navy says they don't even touch down on British soil. We haven't fought alone since the Falklands, but we have the second largest military expenditure in the world, which covers science, engineering and technology. 20 quid and your spare hand grenade says we crack out the lasers if we are threatened with invasion.Sparrow Tag said:
Is this the tank you are thinking of? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Challenger_2]
The odds are even worse. 30:1
The odds are even worse. 30:1
It should be noted that Hitler essentially invaded the USSR at the time when he was most likely to succeed, as it was right after one of Stalin's purges, which basically killed off anyone with an ounce of sense in the Red Army.berethond said:
I also think that he didn't invade the USSR during winter, but that the invasion of the USSR wasn't over by winter, which gave the Red Army the advantage late into the invasion.
Not these days dude. Russia has a pretty small population now, and it has only just begun to go into the positives, growth wise, again after 20 years or so.Bulletinmybrain said:
It has the advantage of terrain and being well spread out, but enough bombing of the main cities and you would take out a significant amount of the population.
Is it still a dictatorship? Yes? Then they don't have to worry about the anti-war pussies.blackcherry said:
Without turning this into a WW2 thread Lets get one thing straight though:ElephantGuts said:
If he would be posting that question in German, so would you.
Let's face it. If anyone even touches down in Britain, we don't send the military; we send Millwall fans as the first wave, Liverpool fans as the second, then we send in the military.Mazty said:
Anyway this thread interests me. I may consider starting a china one.
It is this flippy-floopy wishy-washy thing they go through. They supported invading a country, and not staying around to actually fix it. Most of them don't see why we're still there. Which makes me rage.blackcherry said:
A channel is much, much smaller then an ocean.ChromeAlchemist said:
A few points.
England has been convinced of it's own invincibility before, it never works out. In general it's current attitudes are based on the assumption that the existing alliances and such will hold and that none of those "allies" will be part of whatever threat it faces. European powers also have a tendency to be very focused on their back yard and not want to acknowlege a threat until it's right on their doorstep. We saw this in both World Wars, and the attitudes haven't changed much since then.
The EU as it stands now is mostly an economic arrangement, and overall a massive joke. The way France freaked and almost pulled out of the EU over the threat that other Europeans might come to live in France and demand the rights of French citizens was very telling, and almost classicly French.
Germany in paticular is a group that (even if nobody agrees with me) I feel should not be trusted under any circumstances. "The Germans are our friends" is not anything that anyone should rely on.
As far as invasion goes, the entire EU is at the moment more or less at the military mercy of the US, China, and Russia. The US's military seems like a "joke" because of our police actions and the fact that we haven't fought any serious wars since World War II. All of our objectives have been about winning a peace, rather than simply running in to level everything and remove a threat. China and Russia have the manpower to literally swamp anyone out there, including the US if it wasn't for these big huge oceans (and everyone else) between us and them.
I'm sure Europeans (and others) will disagree, but that is more or less how it is. For all of their nuclear power (so to speak), Russia just kicked the EU's can not too long ago by shutting off the fuel, and invading Georgia which was right on it's border, with no signifigant retaliation. What's more, I'm not sure if the EU combined has a stockpile capable of doing much to Russia or China. Sure it might get a few cities, but we're not talking the US that has an arsenal capable of wiping out the world 10x over. It comes down to the "nuclear Iran" Vs. Isreal arguement. One of the reasons why it's a possibility is that fanatics can wipe out Isreal with a nuclear spread, but Isreal's retaliation is only likely to be a drop in the bucket of the Arab/Muslim community. Even if they wipe out Iran, how many Muslims would still be out there? Yet on the other hand Jews would be forced to near non-existance. The same basic arguement applies to things as massive as Russia or China. Nations like France simply cannot do enough damage to do more than slow them down despite what they might say.
In the end it also comes down to how many boots can be put on the ground, and again it comes to manpower. Either Russia or China vastly outnumber any defensive forces, and due to a certain president dropping the ball China has managed to knockoff a lot of US technology to make things like their new Yuan Class submarines. The tech advantage might not exactly be in Europe's favor.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the EU isn't a power. It's just not yet a superpower, as the new kids on the block they really can't play with the big boys.
I also personally think that in the face of a serious threat the EU is likely to fragment. What's more England is most likely to be facing invasion BY it's neighbors. It's doubtful that Germany will directly build up a huge war machine again, BUT their economic actions and such might lead to them effectively building an empire that way and effectively controlling certain nations in the region and their military as puppets.
I look back at France for example, despite all the comments about the vaunted "French Resistance" Germany simply didn't have the boots to occupy and control France. US actions sort of demonstrate how difficult that is. Like it or not France was a nation of Nazi collaberators no matter how much they try and deny it. Convince them they have an advantage and can pull it off, and France will jump on anyone around them. The French want nothing more than to have an empire (and be truely relevent) again.
But basically the US couldn't invade but we could level the EU. We probably have enough anti-missle technology via submarines and planes with some of the newer syustems to stop the EU nuclear stockpile (which is sizable, but not as much as people might think). We could pretty much kill nearly everyone and leave few structures standing, and there wouldn't be many people to shoot back at while we did it.
Russia or China could basically "Zerg" the EU, absorbing the nuclear hits and pretty much overrunning the entire place with sheer numbers. The numer of tanks Russia has is frightening, as is the raw manpower China can produce, especially combined with some of
their recent military improvements.
If it's just england... well... England is a power, but it's pretty much dead. All the British arrogance in the world can't deal with some of these realities. England is mostly a factor when it backs a bigger power like the US. Great support, but not really running point anymore.
As far as Hitler and his Russian campaign, the problem was that he was fighting on too many fronts. He was also not driven by logic (the guy was seriously into the Occult as many of you might have heard). Had Hitler waited we'd all be speaking German right now. Don't misunderstand, "we" came VERY, VERY close to losing that war.
Had Hitler been able to focus the full might of his military on Russia, he would have wiped it out, Russian Winter non-withstanding. Simply put the Russians only won because the Nazis were spread too thin and were able to cut the supply lines as the offensive forces moved in too deeply. Had Hitler waited he could have held off the Russians, focused on other fronts, and then brought everything up against them. In that case we know bloody well retrospectively he would have won. He overextended and pretty much lost on all fronts, a lot of his super weapons were not developed as a result (people have talked about some of the crud he had in development) and he wound up on the defensive, and pulling out the fanatical citizens in the "Volkssturm" in a last ditch defense to turn back the allies, which failed and lead to the death of the majority of his supporters who threw themselves at the allies, and/or were rounded up and executed en-masse down to the children and elderly.
>>>----Therumancer--->
England has been convinced of it's own invincibility before, it never works out. In general it's current attitudes are based on the assumption that the existing alliances and such will hold and that none of those "allies" will be part of whatever threat it faces. European powers also have a tendency to be very focused on their back yard and not want to acknowlege a threat until it's right on their doorstep. We saw this in both World Wars, and the attitudes haven't changed much since then.
The EU as it stands now is mostly an economic arrangement, and overall a massive joke. The way France freaked and almost pulled out of the EU over the threat that other Europeans might come to live in France and demand the rights of French citizens was very telling, and almost classicly French.
Germany in paticular is a group that (even if nobody agrees with me) I feel should not be trusted under any circumstances. "The Germans are our friends" is not anything that anyone should rely on.
As far as invasion goes, the entire EU is at the moment more or less at the military mercy of the US, China, and Russia. The US's military seems like a "joke" because of our police actions and the fact that we haven't fought any serious wars since World War II. All of our objectives have been about winning a peace, rather than simply running in to level everything and remove a threat. China and Russia have the manpower to literally swamp anyone out there, including the US if it wasn't for these big huge oceans (and everyone else) between us and them.
I'm sure Europeans (and others) will disagree, but that is more or less how it is. For all of their nuclear power (so to speak), Russia just kicked the EU's can not too long ago by shutting off the fuel, and invading Georgia which was right on it's border, with no signifigant retaliation. What's more, I'm not sure if the EU combined has a stockpile capable of doing much to Russia or China. Sure it might get a few cities, but we're not talking the US that has an arsenal capable of wiping out the world 10x over. It comes down to the "nuclear Iran" Vs. Isreal arguement. One of the reasons why it's a possibility is that fanatics can wipe out Isreal with a nuclear spread, but Isreal's retaliation is only likely to be a drop in the bucket of the Arab/Muslim community. Even if they wipe out Iran, how many Muslims would still be out there? Yet on the other hand Jews would be forced to near non-existance. The same basic arguement applies to things as massive as Russia or China. Nations like France simply cannot do enough damage to do more than slow them down despite what they might say.
In the end it also comes down to how many boots can be put on the ground, and again it comes to manpower. Either Russia or China vastly outnumber any defensive forces, and due to a certain president dropping the ball China has managed to knockoff a lot of US technology to make things like their new Yuan Class submarines. The tech advantage might not exactly be in Europe's favor.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the EU isn't a power. It's just not yet a superpower, as the new kids on the block they really can't play with the big boys.
I also personally think that in the face of a serious threat the EU is likely to fragment. What's more England is most likely to be facing invasion BY it's neighbors. It's doubtful that Germany will directly build up a huge war machine again, BUT their economic actions and such might lead to them effectively building an empire that way and effectively controlling certain nations in the region and their military as puppets.
I look back at France for example, despite all the comments about the vaunted "French Resistance" Germany simply didn't have the boots to occupy and control France. US actions sort of demonstrate how difficult that is. Like it or not France was a nation of Nazi collaberators no matter how much they try and deny it. Convince them they have an advantage and can pull it off, and France will jump on anyone around them. The French want nothing more than to have an empire (and be truely relevent) again.
But basically the US couldn't invade but we could level the EU. We probably have enough anti-missle technology via submarines and planes with some of the newer syustems to stop the EU nuclear stockpile (which is sizable, but not as much as people might think). We could pretty much kill nearly everyone and leave few structures standing, and there wouldn't be many people to shoot back at while we did it.
Russia or China could basically "Zerg" the EU, absorbing the nuclear hits and pretty much overrunning the entire place with sheer numbers. The numer of tanks Russia has is frightening, as is the raw manpower China can produce, especially combined with some of
their recent military improvements.
If it's just england... well... England is a power, but it's pretty much dead. All the British arrogance in the world can't deal with some of these realities. England is mostly a factor when it backs a bigger power like the US. Great support, but not really running point anymore.
As far as Hitler and his Russian campaign, the problem was that he was fighting on too many fronts. He was also not driven by logic (the guy was seriously into the Occult as many of you might have heard). Had Hitler waited we'd all be speaking German right now. Don't misunderstand, "we" came VERY, VERY close to losing that war.
Had Hitler been able to focus the full might of his military on Russia, he would have wiped it out, Russian Winter non-withstanding. Simply put the Russians only won because the Nazis were spread too thin and were able to cut the supply lines as the offensive forces moved in too deeply. Had Hitler waited he could have held off the Russians, focused on other fronts, and then brought everything up against them. In that case we know bloody well retrospectively he would have won. He overextended and pretty much lost on all fronts, a lot of his super weapons were not developed as a result (people have talked about some of the crud he had in development) and he wound up on the defensive, and pulling out the fanatical citizens in the "Volkssturm" in a last ditch defense to turn back the allies, which failed and lead to the death of the majority of his supporters who threw themselves at the allies, and/or were rounded up and executed en-masse down to the children and elderly.
>>>----Therumancer--->
Fair enough, I can understand that. I would guess that the argument many put forward is that they had no choice in the decision. Well at least in the UK that is the case.Bulletinmybrain said:
Its still very contentious as to whether for the UK, what Blair did was illegal or not.
From Wikipedia, under the Battle of Britain in the Hurricane article:Mazty said:
At the end of June 1940, following the fall of France, the majority of the RAF's 36 fighter squadrons were equipped with Hurricanes. The Battle of Britain officially lasted from 10 July until 31 October, 1940, but the heaviest fighting took place between 8 August and 21 September 1940. Both the Supermarine Spitfire and the Hurricane are renowned for their part in defending Britain against the Luftwaffe's might ? generally the Spitfire would intercept the German fighters leaving Hurricanes to concentrate on destroying the bombers, but despite the undoubted abilities of the "thoroughbred" Spitfire, it was the "workhorse" Hurricane that scored the highest number of RAF victories during this period, accounting for 1,593 out of the 2,739 total claimed. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Hurricane ]
Hitler built the Bismark mainly to continue the work of the U-boats in raiding Allied shipping convoys and disrupting shipping across the Atlantic. He did not intend it to wipe out the Royal Navy.
And the civilians of Britain may have had high morale but that wouldn't defeat a foreign invasion. It comes down to weapons and military force. If they didn't have guns they couldn't fight the Germans. The civilians of other countries occupied by the Germans, such as France and Denmark, also had high morale and had fairly successful resistance movements. However this was clearly not enough to protect the country from invasion or liberate it once it was occupied.
Therumancer said:
Germany is U.S's pet project. But it is getting old, and like a pet is getting less attention. The new pet(Israeli) is all the rage currently it seems.
That said, germany is the only real sizable nation to actively defend europe..
Note: Submarines? Who cares about submarines? The U.S are into drone research.
This is sort of a reply to Therumancer's wall of text.
You mentioned that Russia or China could overwhelm the EU with sheer numbers. Whilst China could do this, Russia has less than a third of the population of the EU, so it could not. Russia's main power at present stems from the fact that it exports A LOT of natural gas to Europe; Russia's military itself is not so great.
You mentioned that Russia or China could overwhelm the EU with sheer numbers. Whilst China could do this, Russia has less than a third of the population of the EU, so it could not. Russia's main power at present stems from the fact that it exports A LOT of natural gas to Europe; Russia's military itself is not so great.