SS-GB on Sunday bbc1 9pm

[skullmeister]

yes, he probably would have authorised gas, but it was'nt stockpiled as a beach defence weapon - it had been stockpiled because it was a WMD, and in much the same way that now countries dont go around nuking other nuclear powers by the time of WW2 it was our counter to german poison gas stocks

no-one really wanted to unleash the gas horror of WW1 updated to 1940's tech

Interesting stuff, would have been the right strong message to send out.

 

[stephen cartwright]

no problems at all with the sound

maybe people need to adjust their tellys from possibly standard factory settings

I use a cinema setting

 

[Scotty]

Interesting stuff, would have been the right strong message to send out.

not really, the Germans were world leaders in chemical warfare at the time (IG Farben were the company who created both sarin and tabun - amongst others) while we were relying on our WW1 stocks of chemicals

It was'nt until about 1942/3 that we could have overpowered the germans in chemical warfare, and that would have been when we were in position (if we had decided) to launch operation vegetarian - our massive stocks of anthrax versus their more limited stocks of nerve agents..

it would'nt have been pleasant

 

[TK-421]

not really, the Germans were world leaders in chemical warfare at the time (IG Farben were the company who created both sarin and tabun - amongst others) while we were relying on our WW1 stocks of chemicals

It was'nt until about 1942/3 that we could have overpowered the germans in chemical warfare, and that would have been when we were in position (if we had decided) to launch operation vegetarian - our massive stocks of anthrax versus their more limited stocks of nerve agents..

it would'nt have been pleasant

It would have been a f***ing disaster. None of these things are worth using. Completely immoral, like our fire bombing of Dresden.

 

[Deleted member 30853]

Britain was never the goal. We could have stayed out of both wars.
Also I think if you wiki 'war games' or something to that effects, German and British generals got together after the war and acted out what would have happened upon the German invasion and they would have got just north of London and been stopped.

I've noted your later post about the Royal Navy not being allowed into action until after the Germans had landed.

I'm puzzled as to how the Germans would have even got that far. Would they even have got throguh London given they'd have to have fought house to house to penetrate the capital? With the Ruyal Navy even arriving late in the day, German supply lines would have been cut just after first landings.

Add to this the barges the Germans had assembled half heartedly were not fit for purpose and I think the Germans would have penetrated little beyond the south coast and been trapped there.

The Germans went to was two to three years early. Move events back two to three years and they'd have had the bomb. Result would have been a stand off with the Germans on the French sde of the Channel and the British and Germans on the other. You'd have had a cold war situation but with different protagonists.

 

[TK-421]

I've noted your later post about the Royal Navy not being allowed into action until after the Germans had landed.

I'm puzzled as to how the Germans would have even got that far. Would they even have got throguh London given they'd have to have fought house to house to penetrate the capital? With the Ruyal Navy even arriving late in the day, German supply lines would have been cut just after first landings.

Add to this the barges the Germans had assembled half heartedly were not fit for purpose and I think the Germans would have penetrated little beyond the south coast and been trapped there.

The Germans went to was two to three years early. Move events back two to three years and they'd have had the bomb. Result would have been a stand off with the Germans on the French sde of the Channel and the British and Germans on the other. You'd have had a cold war situation but with different protagonists.

I think just north of London was the furthest they could have possibly got considering absolutely every aspect went their way. I'm not really sure on the intricacies of the detail.

Your nuke point is interesting. Would they have had it before the Americans? Would it have mattered if they had? All very interesting questions and possibilities come from that that I hadn't considered before. Thank you.

 

[Fletch]

This is more interesting than the SS-GB show

 

[Deleted member 30853]

I think just north of London was the furthest they could have possibly got considering absolutely every aspect went their way. I'm not really sure on the intricacies of the detail.

Your nuke point is interesting. Would they have had it before the Americans? Would it have mattered if they had? All very interesting questions and possibilities come from that that I hadn't considered before. Thank you.

4th March 1945, Thuringia in Central Germany. A bright flash was reported with photographs showing an explosion euivalent to a tactial nuclear device had occurred.

A German officer reported the previous day that a technology was to be tested that would change the course of history.

It's unclear if the device tested was a small nuclear warhead or alternatively a thermobaric device, however, if it was a nuke then it was developed too late in the day for the Germans to develop further weapons. The Russians captured the site and accompanying facilities soon after, the facilities being destroyed by the Russians along with any evidence of what was going on there.

The obvious approach woud have been to do isotope testing on the soil at the blast site, but I don't know of any evidence of this being done.

 

[skullmeister]

What were our troop numbers back then, how would we have coped with a massive German paratrooper landing to maybe take over and hold an airstrip or two to allow more reinforcements to be flown in.

 

[Scotty]

It would have been a f***ing disaster. None of these things are worth using. Completely immoral, like our fire bombing of Dresden.

and thats where we'll disagree

Dresden was a legitimate target, requested by the russians, that was the only intact railhub used to ferry reinforcements into Berlin

and people seem to gloss over the fact that the Americans bombed Dresden the morning after we had bombed Dresden..but we dont see them tying themselves in knots about it

I've noted your later post about the Royal Navy not being allowed into action until after the Germans had landed.

I'm puzzled as to how the Germans would have even got that far. Would they even have got throguh London given they'd have to have fought house to house to penetrate the capital? With the Ruyal Navy even arriving late in the day, German supply lines would have been cut just after first landings.

Add to this the barges the Germans had assembled half heartedly were not fit for purpose and I think the Germans would have penetrated little beyond the south coast and been trapped there.

The Germans went to was two to three years early. Move events back two to three years and they'd have had the bomb. Result would have been a stand off with the Germans on the French sde of the Channel and the British and Germans on the other. You'd have had a cold war situation but with different protagonists.

no they would'nt..they had chased all the clever physicists out of the country (cos they were jews) and the ones that were left got their sums wrong

for an example of how long it would have took the germans to develop a nuke look at how long it took us - Tube Alloys was the most advanced nuke weapon program on the planet, and it still took the vast resources of the US and the empire to make it happen by 1945

even if they had the sums right they still have to (amongst other things) be able to generate the vast amounts of electricity (thanks US), and have enough Uranium (thanks Canada). The Germans did'nt really have either

And they have to do all this while the RAF and USAAF are bombing them flat

nope, aint happening

 

[TK-421]

4th March 1945, Thuringia in Central Germany. A bright flash was reported with photographs showing an explosion euivalent to a tactial nuclear device had occurred.

A German officer reported the previous day that a technology was to be tested that would change the course of history.

It's unclear if the device tested was a small nuclear warhead or alternatively a thermobaric device, however, if it was a nuke then it was developed too late in the day for the Germans to develop further weapons. The Russians captured the site and accompanying facilities soon after, the facilities being destroyed by the Russians along with any evidence of what was going on there.

The obvious approach woud have been to do isotope testing on the soil at the blast site, but I don't know of any evidence of this being done.

I would doubt it would have been done if the Russians had it. They were far more concerned with killing and raping everyone in sight and erecting monuments to reform the mentality of Eastern Europe and east Germany as quickly as possible to solidify their claim to the post-war political landscape.
German scientists were involved in the development of the H-bomb so the story is plausible, I'd say.
I think the war (as well as the first war) was easily preventable so I wonder if the timing of it was purely down to Hitler taking an opportunity through British and French weakness to drive east unopposed. If it hadn't kicked off when it did, maybe it would have developed into a Cold War situation like you said. But then again, would I don't think the Americans would have been too concerned about German dominance of Europe. It would have benefitted their foreign policy greatly, stifling British dominance in the region as well as weakening the Soviet Union. It's a little known historical possibility that Britain and the US were on the war path prior to the First World War.

 

[Scotty]

What were our troop numbers back then, how would we have coped with a massive German paratrooper landing to maybe take over and hold an airstrip or two to allow more reinforcements to be flown in.

the paratroops and transports were still refitting after being used in Norway and the Low Countries so they did'nt have many available - it was'nt until Crete in 1941 that they were back to full strength (where they were successful, but they got chewed up doing it)

plus we had all sorts of nasty surprises planned for just that sort of stunt

plus the germans did'nt really have a clue which airfields were which - the amount of times they went after fighter command airfields in the BoB and bombed costal command or FAA airfields is quite high

chances are they'd land at a completely unsuitable one

 

[TK-421]

and thats where we'll disagree

Dresden was a legitimate target, requested by the russians, that was the only intact railhub used to ferry reinforcements into Berlin

and people seem to gloss over the fact that the Americans bombed Dresden the morning after we had bombed Dresden..but we dont see them tying themselves in knots about it

Well they should tie themselves in knots about it. It was a working class area, as you allude to in regards to the railway hub, that greatly opposed the NSDAP. The whole purpose was to kill as many citizens as possible, and that, to me, is indefensible. A great stain on our history in my opinion and would be hugely condemned as a war crime if it was the other way around.

 

[skullmeister]

Well they should tie themselves in knots about it. It was a working class area, as you allude to in regards to the railway hub, that greatly opposed the NSDAP. The whole purpose was to kill as many citizens as possible, and that, to me, is indefensible. A great stain on our history in my opinion and would be hugely condemned as a war crime if it was the other way around.

What the impact on morale for both sides?
My mam lived through the war, lost school friends and family to German bombings, her view of this and how bomber command have been viewed at times, is very strong.

 

[Cockney Mackem]

Fatherland is a good fun read, but it didn't have the impact on me of SSGB

I think I have read everything Len Deighton and John Le Carre ever wrote, and I don't understand anyone who doesn't like them. They write about good people trying to do the right thing in situations where there are no rights and wrongs, and where moral judgements blur all the time.

SSGB takes this to another level, with a character working for the Nazis in occupied Britain. Tense and brilliant

I just can't get away with Le Carre's writing style.

 

[Scotty]

Well they should tie themselves in knots about it. It was a working class area, as you allude to in regards to the railway hub, that greatly opposed the NSDAP. The whole purpose was to kill as many citizens as possible, and that, to me, is indefensible. A great stain on our history in my opinion and would be hugely condemned as a war crime if it was the other way around.

I'm not going to deny that the was surely an element of the RAF/ USAAF demonstrating to the Russians exactly what they could do but war is hell

its always 'but what about poor Dresden', whilst conveniently ignoring the half a hundred other German towns and cities that took a pasting (some much worse than Dresden), or the japanese cities that were fire-bombed...or our cities, or Rotterdam, etc, etc

 

[TK-421]

What the impact on morale for both sides?
My mam lived through the war, lost school friends and family to German bombings, her view of this and how bomber command have been viewed at times, is very strong.

I'm sure the morale took quite the hit. Which was probably the point of it. But you have to do this by mass murdering civilians in an area that wasn't particularly of strategic importance, like Hamburg, then I'd argue that it takes away the moral superiority aspect of fighting the war.
Bare in mind that we did this before any of the death camps had been found (although top brass I think knew they existed).

I'm not going to deny that the was surely an element of the RAF/ USAAF demonstrating to the Russians exactly what they could do but war is hell

its always 'but what about poor Dresden', whilst conveniently ignoring the half a hundred other German towns and cities that took a pasting (some much worse than Dresden), or the japanese cities that were fire-bombed...or our cities, or Rotterdam, etc, etc

I don't think any of that was right. It's just how history has been written that it was 'just' when we did it. I mentioned Hamburg in my previous post, absolutely obliterated.

 

[skullmeister]

I'm sure the morale took quite the hit. Which was probably the point of it. But you have to do this by mass murdering civilians in an area that wasn't particularly of strategic importance, like Hamburg, then I'd argue that it takes away the moral superiority aspect of fighting the war.
Bare in mind that we did this before any of the death camps had been found (although top brass I think knew they existed).

It's a tough one looking back now to understand how right, wrong, effective or not, it was but maybe living through it at the time we all would have different views.

 

[Scotty]

I'm sure the morale took quite the hit. Which was probably the point of it. But you have to do this by mass murdering civilians in an area that wasn't particularly of strategic importance, like Hamburg, then I'd argue that it takes away the moral superiority aspect of fighting the war.
Bare in mind that we did this before any of the death camps had been found (although top brass I think knew they existed).


I don't think any of that was right. It's just how history has been written that it was 'just' when we did it. I mentioned Hamburg in my previous post, absolutely obliterated.

how can anyone say a place like Hamburg was'nt of strategic value - it was their largest port

and why no sorrow for Bochum (83% destroyed), or Heilbronn (82%), Pforzherim (83%), Remscheid (83%) or poor Wurzburg (89%)

 

[riffraff]

I'm sure the morale took quite the hit. Which was probably the point of it. But you have to do this by mass murdering civilians in an area that wasn't particularly of strategic importance, like Hamburg, then I'd argue that it takes away the moral superiority aspect of fighting the war.
Bare in mind that we did this before any of the death camps had been found (although top brass I think knew they existed).

There's nothing that could take away the morale superiority of being on the opposite side to Nazi Germany.