PDA

View Full Version : historical question (English Channel supremacy)



Tozzifan
09-11-2005, 07:13 AM
was the english Navy (maybe coupled with Airforce) stronger than german's?
does this explain why the control of the English Channel stayed under english domain?

Tozzifan
09-11-2005, 07:13 AM
was the english Navy (maybe coupled with Airforce) stronger than german's?
does this explain why the control of the English Channel stayed under english domain?

Goose_Green
09-11-2005, 07:35 AM
I wouldn't say the Royal Navy was stronger than the Kreigsmarine, but it depends on how you would define strongest.

Although Strategically the UK has a natural defence that is the English Channel, neither force was willing to leave port for a mass punch up in the seas around the UK. Isolated skirmishes such as the Bismarck chase etc and the famous "Channel Dash". The Channel Dash was an occaion where a number of German vessels such as the Scharnhorst, Gneisenau and Prinz Eugen and a number of other German vessels avoided UK radar and air cover and made a getaway from their Brittany base to somewhere in Norway where Hitler had ordered them to move to. see the following link for more info
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/operation_cerberus.htm

It is important to note that along the Channel there were key RN bases such as Portsmouth, Plymouth & Portland - and being so narrow the British patrolled the channel far heavily than the Germans.

The English Channel has saved the UK from invasion a few times - just ask the Spanish in (1588) and the Germans (1940). But don't ask a Frenchman (1066)!!!

Anton_Reinhold
09-11-2005, 08:50 AM
The only thing the Germans had more and better of in WWII was submersibles. Germany had 2 battleships, 2 battlecruisers, 3 pocket battleships, 3 heavy cruisers, 6 light cruisers, and several dozen destroyers where as the British had something like a dozen battelships, a few aircraft carriers (which Germany had none, do not count Graf Zeppelin since she was never completed,) 3 or 4 battlecruisers, and many, many more cruisers and destroyers (numerous times the number of cruisers and destroyers than Germany had.) Some will argue that Germany's ships were newer and better in quality but when you analize the Bismark's obvious design flaw, the German destroyer's bad bow design, and the pocket battleships that could only be used as commerce raiders, it becomes obvious that Britain had the upper hand. What Germany was correctly betting on, was that Britain's empire was stretched all over the world and that her fleet consisted of alot of ships from other nations and that they would not be able to concentrate their forces in the England/Germany area enough to overwhelm the Kriegsmarine. Generally speaking though, the German surface ships spent most of their time in port.
Now if Hitler had just waited a couple more years and allowed Raeder to build things up more, oh boy...

Gunnersman
09-11-2005, 09:19 AM
Interesting read. Thanks for the link and the info guys.

walterlzw
09-11-2005, 09:30 AM
I'd say that England definitely had a stronger navy than Germany. That the Germans decided to go submarine was because they have given up hope of challenging the Brits at sea. With submarines they could at best negate Britain's naval advantage; gaining supremacy was never a thing they could dream of.

Chrystine
09-11-2005, 09:45 AM
*

€œThey've got us surrounded again, the poor bastards.€

~ General Creighton W. Abrams

*

Tozzifan
09-11-2005, 02:38 PM
thanks http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Kaleun1961
09-11-2005, 02:53 PM
Germany's official plan to expand the Kriegsmarine was called the "Z Plan." It would have seen the building of a large surface fleet that would not have been ready to challenge the Royal Navy until 1947. I said challenge, not defeat. Raeder was promised this by Hitler, and was of course caught short when war began in 1939. The U-Waffe were also caught short, with 50-60 U-boats, nowhere near enough to strangle Britain's lifeline. Many of these few early-war subs were the "duck boats," not suitable for the Atlantic operations.

Given that they were unprepared to challenged the Royal Navy, the U-boats were the best chance to blockade Britain. They could be built and deployed much more quickly and because of their stealth, effectively. But there were never enough to do the job. Also, Germany did not invest enough in U-boat research, so eventually the Allies defeated them, having taken sufficient alarm at what those relatively few U-boats accomplished.

Dominicrigg
09-11-2005, 05:37 PM
The Royal navy ruled the seas in world war 2, as it had since 1692. (Some would even argue from 1588 skill wise, but the Spanish fleet was larger in total by far.)

Britain realised the vast importance of the navy as the first world war had been won due to the Navy (sadly the unsung heroes to some extent in popular knowledge as the trenches make a much more harrowing story).

It was not holed up in ports in world war 2 as someone said but the navy was busy holding german ships up in ports and defending the empire. The British Navy could sail about freely.

The Italian navy was actually much stronger then the German one, and had hitler marched through spain and then been able to capture gibralter (no easy feat) then the italian fleet would have been released into the theatre. That would have made things interesting!

Had raeders plan for a large fleet come to fruition it still would not have helped. Britain, had built her ships to treaty sizes, as had Germany, if germany had started building a large fleet Britain would have matched/surpassed this building. Also the Royal Navy was unmatched in terms of skill, so Hitler was right to try to win without the use of the Navy since he got his goods overland, he knew what he was doing.

His stupid mistake was to break this overland route by attacking Russia... but thats a different story!

ajoleary
09-11-2005, 08:21 PM
The other thing that has yet to be pointed out, is that even if the Axis powers had managed to gain anywhere near the surface fleet numbers required, they had little experience in Naval warfare. The English however (as Dominicrigg pointed out), has been hauling **** in the oceans since 1588 or so. Therefore, their commanders and strategic thinking were far superior to that of the Germans who had tasted little success in the seas. Most of the German naval wins during WWI were from well placed minefields.

The Axis commanders would have been slaughtered in anything close to an even fight. So they had to think of an equaliser. Hence the focus on U-Boat warfare and construction. Problem was, Hitler got greedy too early. He didn't have sufficient numbers of ocean going U-boats (Type VIIs rather than Type IIs)to have the initial impact really required at the outset of the war.

Chrystine
09-11-2005, 09:11 PM
*

€œHe didn't have sufficient numbers of ocean going U-boats (Type VIIs rather than Type IIs)to have the initial impact really required at the outset of the war.€

True in & of itself, but also equally moot, isn't it?
Even had the Germans such €˜sufficient numbers€¦at the outset€¦€ it would never have been €˜enough.€

What was absolutely required & indispensable was a well-established long-term, un-interruptible production capability, flexible enough to incorporate & implement advances made from continuous Research & Development, to sustain a long-term war of U-boat attrition €¦ - and this all on a much-larger scale than they ever managed; and all of which they failed to realize and accomplish.

I even wonder somewhat whether had the Germans possessed much-larger numbers of Ocean-going U-boats in the opening phase(s) of the war, it would not have likewise served the long-term interests of the Allies more than themselves (assuming in-like hypothesis they never did achieve the constancy of mass-dynamic production they needed to make the U-boat arm anything more than a perpetually dangerous menace).

Best,
~ C.

*

Kaleun1961
09-11-2005, 09:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ajoleary:
The other thing that has yet to be pointed out, is that even if the Axis powers had managed to gain anywhere near the surface fleet numbers required, they had little experience in Naval warfare. The English however (as Dominicrigg pointed out), has been hauling **** in the oceans since 1588 or so. Therefore, their commanders and strategic thinking were far superior to that of the Germans who had tasted little success in the seas. Most of the German naval wins during WWI were from well placed minefields.

The Axis commanders would have been slaughtered in anything close to an even fight. So they had to think of an equaliser. Hence the focus on U-Boat warfare and construction. Problem was, Hitler got greedy too early. He didn't have sufficient numbers of ocean going U-boats (Type VIIs rather than Type IIs)to have the initial impact really required at the outset of the war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What relevance did experience from the 16th century have to the 20th century? And when did the Royal Navy ever allow the Germans to have an even fight? Historically, whenever the German navy did stand and fight it seemed to do alright; their leaders just never allowed them to do it very often. The British and Germans did fairly evenly at Jutland. There the Germans exposed some serious design flaws in the British dreadnoughts.

Bismarck gave as good as it got, or better. It certainly sent a statement in blowing up Hood and mauling Prince of Wales. It took a very large portion of the Royal Navy to hunt it down and kill it, so much for a "fair fight."

This is not to besmirch the RN or the British in any way. There is no such thing as a fair fight in a war. "Shock and awe" to use a modern term was what you did to the other guy, whenever you could.

I just think that the reputation and competence of the RN while high, was crumbling. Their carriers were not much compared to what Japan and the U.S. were operating at the time.

Kaleun1961
09-11-2005, 09:28 PM
I might also add the Royal Navy did not come off looking so mighty and daunting when they allowed convoy PQ 17 to get slaughtered when, upon hearing a rumour that Tirpitz may have been in the area, they skedaddled and left the merchants on their own.

Dominicrigg
09-12-2005, 07:36 AM
Mmmm a little bit of historical confusion there. I dont know which version you have been taught but what actually happened was :

The British saw a spotter plane realised that the German navy would be incoming and told the "FLEET" of "MERCHANTS" to scatter to make them a hard target (as they should in the game).
Then set to steam to attack the German ships. Who promptly sailed into port in norway. Then uboats attacked the scattered convoy.

As for carriers the British Ark royal was the first true carrier as far as I know and was far superior to any other nations, having armoured decks ect. Other countries like japan and America were not involved in the war early on and had time to make profit from arms sales for long enough to build up their fleets. Also they no longer followed treaty restrictions on building their ships.

But the ark royal is in my opinion the greatest carrier ever, especially on action carried out.

paulhager
09-12-2005, 08:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dominicrigg:
Mmmm a little bit of historical confusion there. I dont know which version you have been taught but what actually happened was :

The British saw a spotter plane realised that the German navy would be incoming and told the "FLEET" of "MERCHANTS" to scatter to make them a hard target (as they should in the game).
Then set to steam to attack the German ships. Who promptly sailed into port in norway. Then uboats attacked the scattered convoy.

As for carriers the British Ark royal was the first true carrier as far as I know and was far superior to any other nations, having armoured decks ect. Other countries like japan and America were not involved in the war early on and had time to make profit from arms sales for long enough to build up their fleets. Also they no longer followed treaty restrictions on building their ships.

But the ark royal is in my opinion the greatest carrier ever, especially on action carried out. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm glad you mentioned the PQ-17 debacle - yes, it was the scatter, pursuant to sketchy intel and a bad decision, that led to the slaughter.

As for the prowess of the Ark Royal, I suspect you'd get quite a bit of debate on that score. Obviously the Brits contributed a number of important innovations to naval aviation. In fact, they came close to being the first to use aircraft in a major naval engagement - the seaplane carrier HMS Engadine was available but never utilized at the Battle of Jutland. I am aware that the Brits showed how to properly use the F4U Corsair from CV's - it was only after this that they were very effectively used by the U.S. Navy.

Kaleun1961
09-13-2005, 09:33 PM
I will confess that it's been a long time since I've read about PQ17 and could have been recalling it incorrectly. I take it back then. Yes, it was the U-boats mostly and some Luftwaffe as well that slaughtered the convoy, against which the surface fleet of large combatants would have been ineffective.

Royal Navy commanders certainly were not gutless. I believe Glowworm, a destroyer, sacrificed herself charging the much larger Blucher, in order to buy time for some transports to escape.

vanjast
09-14-2005, 12:26 AM
I don't think anybody touched on this point. As far as I remember, this came from an English naval historian.

The German navy by 1939 had achieved an incredible amount. Their targeting systems and use of, were superior to anything else (the Hood was split on about the 2nd or 3rd salvo and destroyed very soon after). Their tactical thinking and seamanship were superior to the English (Yes, this is what was said).

The only thing the Germans could not beat the English with, was numbers of surface ships. This is where the English maximised this advantage. But with just a small pocket battleship sitting in harbour, forced the English to allocate a squadron or 2 of surface ships plus numurous other resources from the other forces to monitor the battleship on a 24/7 basis. So great was the threat perceived, that these allied forces could not be used elsewhere.

Well the rest is history
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Kaleun1961
09-14-2005, 02:03 PM
That was also the justification that Donitz used to continue the U-boat war in spite of being technologically outclassed from 1943 onwards. The amount of Allied resources tied up in this manner [fighting U-boats] meant they were not available to the Allies for any other operations.

joeap
09-14-2005, 03:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kaleun1961:
That was also the justification that Donitz used to continue the U-boat war in spite of being technologically outclassed from 1943 onwards. The amount of Allied resources tied up in this manner [fighting U-boats] meant they were not available to the Allies for any other operations. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

True but then the Germans were spending resources on the u-boats and on training their crews as well. About 1000 u-boats would have equaled how many Tiger tanks I wonder??

Kaleun1961
09-14-2005, 04:05 PM
This one could go round and round in circles. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

The production capacity required to produce one Tiger could have been use to produce perhaps three or four Mark IV panzers, or maybe two Panthers.

One U-boat which sank an LST carrying [I don't know the carrying capacity of an LST. Anybody?] tanks and crews, thus preventing their landing and employment in combat would equal a goodly number of Tigers, Panthers or other panzer variants.

Sinking tankers deprived the Allies of fuel for tanks, planes, ships and other vehicles.

One could, I suppose, debate this one back and forth. But I hope we don't. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

julien673
09-14-2005, 04:32 PM
In the 40's, when the first group of the FW190 was there..

The english didn t know what is going there,... its why some small battleship... travel whitout big problem http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

somethink like this

http://www.navyphotos.co.uk/bmrck1b.jpg

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif

Dominicrigg
09-15-2005, 05:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by julien673:
In the 40's, when the first group of the FW190 was there..

The english didn t know what is going there,... its why some small battleship... travel whitout big problem http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Or you mean something like this?

http://img377.imageshack.us/img377/3746/bismarck3xo.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

You call that travelling without a big problem? I hope you dont run a ferry service! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

vanjast
09-15-2005, 05:17 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

julien673
09-15-2005, 09:26 AM
You are talking about the suprematy in the english channel don t you ?

They got here after the english channel lol, after one lucky plane find him http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif

The_Silent_O
09-15-2005, 09:33 AM
It's world war II all over again in this thread... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

...do I need to pitch in as an American to state that it was OUR Aircraft and Weapons (FIDO torpedoe,...anyone) technology that WON the war in the Atlantic... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

/Pompous American Attitude, off

Michiel_88
09-15-2005, 09:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kaleun1961:

[I don't know the carrying capacity of an LST. Anybody?] </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

An LST loaded for an amphibious landing had about 500 tons of tanks, ammo, etc...
For sea transport, it was loaded with 1600-1700 tons of stuff.

Kaleun1961
09-15-2005, 05:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Michiel_88:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kaleun1961:

[I don't know the carrying capacity of an LST. Anybody?] </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

An LST loaded for an amphibious landing had about 500 tons of tanks, ammo, etc...
For sea transport, it was loaded with 1600-1700 tons of stuff. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That being the case, you may understand why Donitz pressed his crews so hard. It was far more beneficial to the German war effort to sink this cargo before it landed, as opposed to trying to destroy it in combat. Thank you for this data.

husky65au
09-15-2005, 05:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by The_Silent_O:
It's world war II all over again in this thread... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

...do I need to pitch in as an American to state that it was OUR Aircraft and Weapons (FIDO torpedoe,...anyone) technology that WON the war in the Atlantic... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

/Pompous American Attitude, off </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just to be accurate, it was Brit sensors that won the battle of the atlantic, specifically the cavity magnetron and ASDIC.

All the weapons in the world are no use unless you know where to find the enemy.

husky65au
09-15-2005, 05:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
True but then the Germans were spending resources on the u-boats and on training their crews as well. About 1000 u-boats would have equaled how many Tiger tanks I wonder?? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Almost none.

Shipyards don't convert quickly to tank production.

vanjast
09-16-2005, 12:51 AM
"To be precise" - Thompson and Thompson.

In the early years of the war British technology advancements far outstripped the American stuff. The Americans had the production capacity (So Yamamoto realised). But in this same period it was the Germans who were tops (Well they had been preparing for years). The British then shared their technology with the americans who mass produced it, and did their own developments from this technology -&gt; MIT.

Examples:- the sherman tank was converted by the Brits with the (tiger killer) 17 pounder gun. the original gun shells just bounced off the Tiger.
The P51 was rejected by the americans. It took the Brits to mod it, and show them how to use it properly.
Incidently the ASDIC was useless to the navy but it was all they had. It was superceded by another better device working on the same principles. I'm not sure who invented this.

My bit of useless non-nationalistic info http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

husky65au
09-16-2005, 01:39 AM
[QUOTE]

"Examples:- the sherman tank was converted by the Brits with the (tiger killer) 17 pounder gun. the original gun shells just bounced off the Tiger."

It was converted by the Brits after they saw the photos and drawings of how to do it (in a similar sized turret) by the Australians in the Sentinel tank.


"Incidently the ASDIC was useless to the navy but it was all they had. It was superceded by another better device working on the same principles. I'm not sure who invented this."

I'm afraid that is not accurate, ASDIC = SONAR, the US name just stuck, there was no fundamental change to the system.

Kaleun1961
09-16-2005, 04:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by husky65au:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
True but then the Germans were spending resources on the u-boats and on training their crews as well. About 1000 u-boats would have equaled how many Tiger tanks I wonder?? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Almost none.

Shipyards don't convert quickly to tank production. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think he meant it in exactly that way. I think he was referring to the materiel used, the amount of steel allocated to U-boat production, labour, money, etc.

Michiel_88
09-16-2005, 10:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kaleun1961:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Michiel_88:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kaleun1961:

[I don't know the carrying capacity of an LST. Anybody?] </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

An LST loaded for an amphibious landing had about 500 tons of tanks, ammo, etc...
For sea transport, it was loaded with 1600-1700 tons of stuff. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you for this data. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My pleasure, really, but a quick search with google can do a miracle, that's what I always say.

joeap
09-16-2005, 11:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kaleun1961:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by husky65au:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
True but then the Germans were spending resources on the u-boats and on training their crews as well. About 1000 u-boats would have equaled how many Tiger tanks I wonder?? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Almost none.

Shipyards don't convert quickly to tank production. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think he meant it in exactly that way. I think he was referring to the materiel used, the amount of steel allocated to U-boat production, labour, money, etc. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's what I meant yes. It does seem Germany tired to do too many things at the same time and fight too many enemies. Obviously the big mistake was invading Russia ... and leaving England undefeated.

husky65au
09-16-2005, 06:29 PM
You still need factories and machine tools etc and the German Tank factories were full, so extra resources (steel etc) would just make piles outside, the extra diesel fuel would be useful but wouldn't change the course of the war as allied air attack was busy destroying the ability to move that fuel.

Germanys only chance to defeat England was the U-Boats, invading was not an option.

husky65au
09-16-2005, 06:44 PM
As an aside, the US, C'wealth and USSR produced over 227,000 tanks and SP guns during the war and Germany produced less than 47,000 - even an extra 20,000 Tigers would not change the course of the war (and Germany could not have fuelled them).

walterlzw
09-16-2005, 11:20 PM
I believe the Germans were doomed in Sep 1939, when they decided to invade Poland. That action was based on the misjudgement that England and France will stay neutral as Poland capitulates. They did stand by and do nothing but that is more out of unpreparedness. Once England is involved, America involvement is a matter of time. To be sure the US was involved way before December 1941.

To me WWII was about 2 new contenders (Japan and Germany) who wished to challenge the supremacy of former imperialists (England, the US, and France). They were 200 years late to the grabbing contest, and naturally became the 'agressors'. To be fair, the Allies had been doing exactly the same thing 200 years earlier.

Lesson from WWII: Do not challenge the Big Man on Campus to a slugfest, instead, sell color TVs and video games.

walterlzw
09-16-2005, 11:29 PM
Useless trivia:

The Bismarck did not dash through the English Channel. She went up along the coast of Norway then west between the northern coast of Iceland and the Polar Cap, where she sunk HMS Hood.

Kaleun1961
09-17-2005, 01:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by walterlzw:
I believe the Germans were doomed in Sep 1939, when they decided to invade Poland. That action was based on the misjudgement that England and France will stay neutral as Poland capitulates. They did stand by and do nothing but that is more out of unpreparedness. Once England is involved, America involvement is a matter of time. To be sure the US was involved way before December 1941.

To me WWII was about 2 new contenders (Japan and Germany) who wished to challenge the supremacy of former imperialists (England, the US, and France). They were 200 years late to the grabbing contest, and naturally became the 'agressors'. To be fair, the Allies had been doing exactly the same thing 200 years earlier.

Lesson from WWII: Do not challenge the Big Man on Campus to a slugfest, instead, sell color TVs and video games. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wouldn't call it "exactly the same thing." You can't compare the atrocities committed by the Nazis and the Japanese military to the colonial period of the western powers.

Acunnon
09-17-2005, 01:33 AM
From what I remember from history class, books and, The History Channel. Neither Germany nor England operated much in the channel because the threat the other fronted. The Germans did not want to enter the channel because English anti sub nets and the proximity of navy (mainly light warships) ports. The English did not operate much in the channel because they would be harassed by German air (Ju 87s and 88s) and the occasional brave U-boat. So the English could claim supremacy because they did operate in the channel but it was to a very limited extent. That all changed on June 6, 1944, after that there is no doubt that the Allies were in control of the channel.

walterlzw
10-25-2005, 12:25 AM
quote:
I wouldn't call it "exactly the same thing." You can't compare the atrocities committed by the Nazis and the Japanese military to the colonial period of the western powers.

You mean the mass massacre of Native Americans? slavery of Africans? murdering of zulus? destruction of south american civilizations? I can go on and on if you keep denying...

Dominicrigg
10-25-2005, 07:53 AM
I would just like to point out that slavery of Africans was going on long before the Europeans got there and started to buy them.

Infact Africans were enslaving each other for 1000's of years. The slaves which Britain and other powers took to the new world were infact slaves already, bought from Africans in most cases.

African tribes used to raid each other, and capture slaves of those they didnt kill, then move them to the coast into little "slave forts" there they would sell them to white people, amongst others, who would ship them to the carribean.

In many cases under British rule they had a far better life then they would have had as African war slaves (though of course they should never have been slaves in the first place). Many went on to be land owners or free people within their livetimes, and the ancestors of many even became famous mary secole being one of these.

Just wanted to share this because its a little known fact and usually ignored by most apologists. The Africans themselves are not free from guilt for this terrible period of time though it doesnt justify enslavement of thousands. Africa was not happy Candy land before evil murderous horrendous Europeans got there.


As for the British murdering Zulus http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif seriously. The British settlers were murdered by zulus, not vica versa. Which started the Zulu wars. To be frank the zulus were warmongers and had a hatred of the civilization and advancements the British were bringing to other africans. I suppose you prefer that africans live in anarchy and murder to civilization though. Here is an example of what the lovely candy covered zulus were doing before the evil murderous british got there.

On the Zulus pre-British expansion. The aftermath of the attack on the Ndwandweland tribe.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">When night halted the pursuit, Shaka sent his two freshest regiments racing to Zwide's kraal, but they failed to capture the enemy chief, who fled some 200 miles before halting. The next morning, the entire Zulu army swept through Ndwandweland, killing every person it encountered, burning all huts and seizing the livestock.

By this victory, Shaka gained absolute control over the heartland of the Nguni, which he used to create a much greater Zulu empire. From then until his death, Shaka's armies ranged the surrounding lands, leaving rotting corpses, burning huts and total devastation in their wake. Shaka became as absolute a ruler as was possible in an age of primitive technology. He amassed vast herds of cattle, each one bred to a single color. Few kings or dictators, before or since, have treated their subjects with such ruthlessness and ferocity. He had his warriors clubbed to death upon the merest sign of weakness. He neither took a legal wife nor fathered a son, for fear that his heir would plot against him, and had his concubines executed if he discovered they were pregnant. He expelled all rainmakers, declaring that only the king could make rain. When his mother died, he massacred thousands of his subjects so their families would mourn along with him. Now clearly insane, Shaka retained his throne through the worst kind of sheer terror-vast mass executions, torture and mindless butchery. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But yeah you are right, the Europeans were terrible hey? Im sure africans were happier before. P.S there were even africans in the British armies vs zulus fighting for British rule.

Kaleun1961
10-25-2005, 12:01 PM
What is often overlooked in the slavery issue is the fact that slavery was a practice going back millenia and adopted by just about every race, nation, tribe, etc. The western colonial powers may have practiced it, but let it be noted that they were the ones who outlawed it and fought by force of arms where necessary to enforce that ban. A lot of "white" blood was shed to outlaw slavery.

As far as the accusation that the colonial powers were more or less genocidal I would reply that it was probably disease that caused the overwhelming number of deaths. If genocide were the deliberate policy of expansion, I doubt whether there would have been any survivors. It is natural in the course of history that nations rise and fall. In the expansion phase, populations swell and the surplus must find somewhere else to live. This often leads to conflict. I will not apply 21st century morality to 17th century life. I didn't live then, nor did I have any hand in what happened then. The world today is as it is and since it is the world in which I must live, I will deal with it here and now.

I will acknowledge the past and live in the present guided by the ethics and morality I have learned in my time. Whatever shameful deeds have been done in the past must be a lesson for today, so that I do not repeat or perpetuate past injustices. I am thankful that I live in a society which encourages and protects the free exchange of ideas and allows us to critically examine ourselves and our nation's history.

If we today are to bear the burden of guilt for the injustices of our forefathers, who is to be the judge and jury of such? When will the debt of ancient grievances be repaid, if ever? Are we forever to carry the guilt of the past or instead strive to build a just present?