"Ernest Schaal" <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote in message
news:BDDA4A83.2DC04%eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp...
> in article 41b43f27@news.greennet.net, allan connochie at
> allan@EASYNET.CO.UK wrote on 12/6/04 4:17 PM:
>
> >
> > "Ernest Schaal" <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote in message
> > news:BDD9E393.2DB7F%eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp...
>
> > While the number of British deaths might be high per capita, it is
ridiculous
> >> to use that as the standard. Such a criteria would give too much
contribution
> >> to small nations whose impact was less than some larger countries.
> >
> > I'm not trying to inflate the importance of Scottish contributions
rather
> > than trying to show why your remarks get some people going.
>
> So the Scots should be allowed to think that they won the war by
themselves?

Where on earth did I say that?  Where on earth did I say anything remotely
approaching that?



> >
>
> >> It is not saying that the British didn't fight bravely, only it is
saying
> >> that the contribution to the cause wasn't as great as some anglophiles
wou ld
> >> suggest.
> >
> > Well it was great as far as they were concerned.  Who else stopped the
Nazi
> > progress in the west if it wasn't the UK and her allies?  With a little
help
> > from some friends Britain basically saved herself.  Plus you've still
not
> > answered the two main points I put.  Would D-Day have been possible if
the
> > Germans had won the Battle Of Britain?  Was the British and Canadian
> > contribution to the D-Day landings etc insignificant?  I think the
liberated
> > French realise the liberation of Europe was essentially a joint campaign
> > even if 'some' Americans nowadays don't.  In Fecamp and Rouen this
summer
> > they were celebrating the D-Day anniversary and both places were awash
with
> > British and Canadian flags as well as the American one.
>
> Who else stopped the Nazi progress in the west? How about the Russian
troops
> tying up many of the troops on the Eastern front?

Sorry but surely you should know very well that the Germans didn't attack
the USSR until after they had lost the Battle Of Britain.  The amount of
troops in the west was a bit irrelevant as far as the defense of Britain
goes as the Germans couldn't land in Britain without air and sea
superiority.  They didn't attain that.



>
> Would D-Day have been possible if the Germans had won the Battle of
Britain?
> It would have been very difficult.

I think just about impossible would be a more likely answer.  It's not just
about troop numbers etc (and of course only about half the troops involved
in the landings were American) it's about logistics.  Where on earth would
the US have built up their invasion force about?  Ireland???  How long do
you think the Germans would have left the Republic alone had Britain fallen?
North Africa?  Would that have been possible without the British clinging on
there?


>
> Would D-Day have been possible if the British tried it alone? It would
have
> been even more difficult.

Did I suggest otherwise?  I repeat rather than trying to diminish the US war
effort I am refuting your dismissal of the British one.  Had there been no
D-Day then it would not necessarily have meant a German victory.  It's
perhaps more likely that the Iron Curtain would have been further west after
a Soviet victory.



Allan