Hitler winning WW2

No.9 is suggest you consult published studies of what England needed as an Island that was neither sufficient in resources or production capabilities to survive.

England didn't take 50 old US destroyers for escort duty to protect their shipping because they had a liking for old destroyers. They needed them to keep their lifelines open.

No war with the USSR/ or declaration of war on the US and Germany could have starved Britain. No invasion was needed.

 

Thank you I am aware of Britain wartime needs, and, the difference between what was needed for wartime production and to host the increasing number of troops who came to Britain. I am also aware of how my family managed through the war in South London and what post war rationing meant which I personally grew-up on.

Just because the machines can’t run does not mean there’s nothing to eat.

No, Britain didn’t take 50 old rust-buckets because they like rust-buckets, they took them because it was quicker and more convenient than building 50 extra destroyers. Being faced with the German, Italian and French fleets in 1940, they were wise to command as big a Navy as possible.

If Hitler thought he could ‘starve’ Britain, then why didn’t he just do so and save his airforce for bombing the Soviets?

As Churchill told Hitler in 1940; ”Come over ‘ere if you think you’re ‘ard enough”

No.9

 

I think another quote by Churchill is a very adequate one here:

"Hitler knows that he'll have to break us in this island or lose the war". Said and done.

Nine, correct me if I'm wrong. But didn't Great Britain in WWII import 60% of the food consumed in the Isles?

You're stating what was thought then, because in reality not a single lifeboat of the French Fleet ever fell onto German hands...

 

Can I be a tad pedantic here, chaps?
Any chance we could stop using England when you actually mean Britain?
See, no9's married to a Celtic lady......and I'm a Celt.....and we thought we lived in Britain. .
You "South Canadian" members seem to be the worst offenders.
Freddie-yes, you're right.
Regards,
Gordon

 

Freddy, you’ve got statistics and you’ve got reality. Britain was not free to conduct open trade, and, even if it were it needed money for things other than food as the war turned the economy upside down.

However, there is a great difference between a person not being able to go to the shops and buy anything they want and not having anything to eat even if you have plenty of money. If you look at parts of Europe during the war you find there were no animals or birds left to eat and people were fighting over rats and eating the bark off trees and any soft plant shoots that didn’t kill them. That, I would say, is starving. Britain was a million miles from this level, people even fed their pets and acquired new ones throughout the war. Britain had to change its diet, but it could get by.

1939
Instant Coffee Instant coffee was first sold in England. This changed our coffee drinking habits. Coffee essence, for example, Camp, which had been sold since the 1850s was now used for cooking, and instant coffee was hereafter drunk in vast quantities by the British.
1940
Rationing was introduced in January 1940 and was gradually extended during the war. Food was the main item. A council was set up to work out how much nutrition different people needed. Children and pregnant mothers received more. The foods that were rationed were meat, fats, cheese, butter, milk, eggs and sweets. Bread, potatoes and vegetables were never rationed. Rationing led to an improvement in people's health as they could not eat fatty foods and had to eat more vegetables, potatoes and bread. Fish and chips was one of the few meals not to be rationed during W.W.II. The forces ate them for energy, and fish and chip vans were laid on to take meals out to the evacuees.
1942
National Loaf The National Loaf was introduced. It was roughly the same composition as the brown bread of today. This was due to a shortage of shipping space for white flour.
1946
Food Cuts Ben Smith, Minister for Food, announced cuts in bacon, poultry, egg rations and withdrew completely the availability of dried eggs. There was a massive outcry.
1947
Winter of Discontent Rations were lower than they had ever been during the war. The 1946/47 winter months were labelled ‘The Winter of Discontent’.
1954
Rationing Ends. With some foods rationing had already finished, for example, sugar rationing ended in 1949.



“It is true to say that those who lived in the country and suburbs faired much better than those living in towns and cities. They could grow many things that city dwellers could not. Even a small garden could grow enough to feed a whole family.

However, the black market flourished in some towns selling off goods that were rationed or were hard to get hold of.

Beef, pork and lamb were all on ration but very difficult to get hold of, but other sources of meat were not. Rabbit and chicken for instance were not rationed, neither were horse and seagull.

Other goods such as cigarettes and alcohol were never officially rationed, but were often in short supply.”

http://www.worldwar2exraf.co.uk/Online%20Museum/Museum%20Docs/foodration.html


Re the fleets, my point is that, with the collapse of France and the entry of Italy, both these countries had sizeable fleets which were an obvious potential threat if deployed with the German fleet in the Axis. I am aware of the actions Britain took against these fleets and no doubt felt all the relieved for it afterwards. But, until events unfolded, if these fleets had acted quickly and with selfless co-ordinated deployment, the combined fleet was considerable.

No.9

 

Good point Flash. It usually occurs when referring to Sealion as Hitler was adamant the invasion would be on England only and not Scotland, after he discovered they had no defence against the threat of the Haggi.

For those not familiar with the initial planning of the invasion, true to German tactics there was to be a two pronged pincer movement on south east England at Dymchurch and north east Scotland at Inverness, joining up around Barnsley. However, an agent sent to Scotland discovered the Scottish plan to unleash the Highland Haggi and drive them into the invaders. An act of unprecedented consequence not undertaken for some 1800 years. The Haggi are normally peaceful provided they are keep pacified by the lament of the bagpipes, which is why you find the pipes liable to be played anywhere in Scotland and at any time. The pipes always adhere to the strict regime of drones followed by chanter.

The drones alert the Haggi to listen and the chanter dispenses the pacifying melody. If a piper were to start with the chanter, the Haggi would not be alerted to receive the melody which would thus be ineffective. If the drones were prolonged after the chanter, the Haggi would remain receptive for a melody which would not be played. While this is quite dangerous, it is no where near at cataclysmic as sustained use of the drones only with never a melody! You will never hear a sustained chorus of drones in Scotland as this would only serve to alert the Haggi and build-up its expectation of the melody until a point is reached where it losses all control and reverts to its primal blood-lust.

When demented in this way, the Haggi go totally berserk and streak through the heather, away from the drones, seeking the melody, and blood. Speed through the heather, at ground level, exceeds that of a Greyhound – over 40 mph, (hence in England the Greyhound chases a Hare while in Scotland it was originally a Haggi). As it approaches a target it launches itself skyward, its two legs folded behind it, at an approximate angle of 45’, aiming specifically for the larynx in search of melodious sound. With its double offset row of razor sharp teeth, which constitute 62% of its skull, the Haggi usually succeeds in displacing the entire neck with such precision the head often drops down squarely on the shoulders, by which time the Haggi has landed and is seeking its next victim. (Note - When offered for sale as the ‘Haggis’, the Haggi is skinned and has the head and legs removed)

Whilst the Haggi cannot survive outside Scotland, (hence it could never be deployed abroad), Hitler’s agents succeeded in bringing a live specimen back to Germany in a special encasement containing Scottish soil, heather and loch water. In order to test the theory of the pipes, a lab assistant was employed to play the drones. The result was disastrous! The Haggi ran amok in the laboratory, de-necking 2 doctors and 4 lab assistants before projecting itself through a second floor window whilst in the act of de-necking a relative of Martin Borman. Through the window it dropped into the open hatch of a passing Panzer. Unable to deal with this alien environment, the Haggis ricocheted around violently, ultimately reducing the entire crew to a glutinous puree before self-destructing having lost all essence of Scotland from its person.

The repercussions in the Third Rich were dramatic. To be parachuted into Scotland was seen as the ultimate punishment, more terrifying than being sent to the Russian Front. Rudolph Hess received such a punishment and out of desperation surrendered immediately before confronting a Haggi and insisted he be taken to England for permanent imprisonment. Martin Borman begged Hitler to send him to Argentina rather than Scotland if he ever incurred the Fuhrer’s displeasure. Regarding Sealion, Hitler at once revised the invasion to England only, and ordered plans drawn-up to partition Scotland once England was secured. This, after all, is exactly the same as the Romans did in AD 122 after the Haggi were unleashed against them. As is known, Hadrian had a wall constructed thick enough to resist the Haggi and just above the maximum height they could jump.

After the Bonnie Prince Charlie Jacobite Rising of 1745, fearing a repeat of AD 122, the English banned the playing of bagpipes, declaring them a weapon of war!

No.9

 

to start, Hitler and Stali were no allies, and if hitler hadn't open the east front, he had won the war BIGTIME!!!

 

No9,
Spot on as usual! Anyone interested in further research will find the appropriate details in file WO95/123/ABC at the National Archives, Kew, Richmond, Surrey.

Regards,
Gordon

 

Thank you Flash, just imparting some research.

Appreciate the double posting GAG, however, a joke’s not so funny the second time – even if it is as good as yours.

No.9

 

Very good post, nine!

Starve may not be the word, but certainly subjecting the British population to a lot of privations.

Great Britain needed approximately 1.000 merchant ships fully loaded to make the country able for total-war.

This was something to worry about. Maybe the population would not have ended eating rats, but certainly there wouldn't have been enough food for armies beyond the sea, fuel nor raw materials for making and running weaponry.

By 1942 and 1943 Great Britain was losing almost 1/3rd of those necessary ships with their more needed loads!

[ 13. January 2004, 04:35 PM: Message edited by: General der Infanterie Friedrich H ]

 

Absolutely true Freddy. Britain is after all totally sea locked and a comparatively small land mass reliant to an extent on imports – dependant on what the imports are for. The statement that Germany sought to starve Britain of supplies is just what they did, and the effect of the bombers and U-boats was considerable. However, the term ‘starve’ is not referring specifically to food but to a broad range of goods, as you say, needed for a happy total war.

But then as the war went on, there were always more and more German POWs to eat.

No.9

 

Hi,
You chaps might be interested in the following data:
Gross Tonnage of British, Allied & Neutral Merchant and Fishing Vessels lost to enemy action 3/9/39-2/9/45 inclusive.
1939-746
1940-3,912
1941-4,187
1942-7,706
1943-3,203
1944-1,044
1945-396
TOTAL=21,194 Tons

Obviously, this includes figures from the Far East, but gives you some idea of the loss rates.

SOURCE

British Vessels Lost at Sea 1939-45 (2nd ed.)
(Cambridge. Patrick Stephens Ltd. 1983) p89.

Regards,
Gordon

 

Hi,
You chaps might be interested in the following data:
Gross Tonnage of British, Allied & Neutral Merchant and Fishing Vessels lost to enemy action 3/9/39-2/9/45 inclusive.
1939-746
1940-3,912
1941-4,187
1942-7,706
1943-3,203
1944-1,044
1945-396
TOTAL=21,194 Tons

Obviously, this includes figures from the Far East, but gives you some idea of the loss rates.

SOURCE

British Vessels Lost at Sea 1939-45 (2nd ed.)
(Cambridge. Patrick Stephens Ltd. 1983) p89.

Regards,
Gordon

 

Hi,
You chaps might be interested in the following data:
Gross Tonnage of British, Allied & Neutral Merchant and Fishing Vessels lost to enemy action 3/9/39-2/9/45 inclusive.
1939-746
1940-3,912
1941-4,187
1942-7,706
1943-3,203
1944-1,044
1945-396
TOTAL=21,194 Tons

Obviously, this includes figures from the Far East, but gives you some idea of the loss rates!
SOURCE

British Vessels Lost at Sea 1939-45 (2nd ed.)
(Cambridge. Patrick Stephens Ltd. 1983) p89.

Regards,
Gordon

 

Hi,
You chaps might be interested in the following data:
Gross Tonnage of British, Allied & Neutral Merchant and Fishing Vessels lost to enemy action 3/9/39-2/9/45 inclusive.
1939-746
1940-3,912
1941-4,187
1942-7,706
1943-3,203
1944-1,044
1945-396
TOTAL=21,194 Tons

Obviously, this includes figures from the Far East, but gives you some idea of the loss rates.
SOURCE

British Vessels Lost At Sea 1939-45 (2nd ed.)
(Cambridge. Patrick Stephens Ltd. 1983) p89.

Regards,
Gordon

 

Hi,
You chaps might be interested in the following data:
Gross Tonnage of British, Allied & Neutral Merchant and Fishing Vessels lost to enemy action 3/9/39-2/9/45 inclusive.
1939-746
1940-3,912
1941-4,187
1942-7,706
1943-3,203
1944-1,044
1945-396
TOTAL=21,194 Tons

Obviously, this includes figures from the Far East, but gives you some idea of the loss rates.
SOURCE

British Vessels Lost At Sea 1939-45 (2nd ed.)
(Cambridge. Patrick Stephens Ltd. 1983) p89.

Regards,
Gordon

 

Some info for you chaps:
Gross Tonnage of British, Allied & Neutral Merchant and Fishing Vessels lost to enemy action, 3/9/39-2/9/45 inclusive;
</font>

• 1939-746
  1940-3,912
  1941-4,187
  1942-7,706
  1943-3,203
  1944-1,044
  1945-396
  Total-21,194</font>

This includes figures from the Far East, obviously, but it gives you some idae of the losses involved.


SOURCE
British Vessels Lost at Sea 1939-45 (2nd Ed)
(Cambridge. Patrick Stephens Ltd. 1983) p89.

Regards,
Gordon

 

Some info for you chaps:
Gross Tonnage of British, Allied & Neutral Merchant and Fishing Vessels lost to enemy action, 3/9/39-2/9/45 inclusive;
</font>

• 1939-746
  1940-3,912
  1941-4,187
  1942-7,706
  1943-3,203
  1944-1,044
  1945-396
  Total-21,194</font>

This includes figures from the Far East, obviously, but it gives you some idae of the losses involved.


SOURCE
British Vessels Lost at Sea 1939-45 (2nd Ed)
(Cambridge. Patrick Stephens Ltd. 1983) p89.

Regards,
Gordon

 

Freddie, no9,
Thought you guys would appreciate this.

Gross Tonnage of British, Allied and Neutral Merchant and Fishing Vessels lost to enemy action 3/9/1939-2/9/1945:
</font>

• 1939- 746</font>
• 1940- 3,912</font>
• 1941- 4,187</font>
• 1942- 7,706</font>
• 1943- 3,203</font>
• 1944- 1,044</font>
• 1945- 396</font>

Obviously this includesfigires from the Far East, but it gives you some idea of the tonnage involved.

Regards,
Gordon

 

Freddie, no9,
Thought you guys would appreciate this.

Gross Tonnage of British, Allied and Neutral Merchant and Fishing Vessels lost to enemy action 3/9/1939-2/9/1945:
</font>

• 1939- 746</font>
• 1940- 3,912</font>
• 1941- 4,187</font>
• 1942- 7,706</font>
• 1943- 3,203</font>
• 1944- 1,044</font>
• 1945- 396</font>

Obviously this includes figures from the Far East, but it gives you some idea of the tonnage involved.

SOURCE

British Vessels Lost at Sea (2nd Ed)
(Cambridge. Patrick Stephens Ltd. 1983)p89

Regards,
Gordon