Most Pointless Battle

**Banquo's Ghost** · 03-31-2006, 10:16

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Sorry about the Q's, but I am a recovering professor....

My vote is -- Brits hold on to your spats -- the Battle of Britain.

Aside from the valor displayed by both sides, what was the point?

Fascinating nominee, and you make some intriguing points.

I wonder, would it have been politically possible for Churchill to have sat back as you suggest and let the capital burn? After so many defeats, would the nation have been able to suffer without any sense of fighting back?

And my impression (possibly very wrongly) was that Hitler believed the British were ready for a deal at that time - he held back at Dunkirk partly through that belief. Was the air assault motivated by a desire to give them a hard push in the direction of the negotiating table? If so, to remove that front ready for an invasion of Russia might have been a good reason to launch the attack - underestimating Churchill's character and resolve would make the continuation of the attacks pointless?

**Kraxis** · 03-31-2006, 10:29

Originally Posted by Haruchai

And my impression (possibly very wrongly) was that Hitler believed the British were ready for a deal at that time - he held back at Dunkirk partly through that belief.

Now why would Hitler think that letting the Brits escape home rather than be captured would induce them to come to the table? Even Hitler wouldn't be that warped.

No the reason Hitler held back was because he had been lead to believe the combined numbers of damaged, broken down and knocked out tanks were knocked out. So the loses to his precious tankforces seemed to him to be absolutely debilitating.
And unlike later he seemed to understand that tanks in urban areas would suffer a lot of losses. Hence he held the panzers back (but not the infantry thoguh). After all where could the Brits go? They couldn't possibly rescue more than 30-40,000 troops, could they?

**screwtype** · 03-31-2006, 10:35

Actually, I think it was more like 300,000 troops rescued at Dunkirk, IIRC.

**Kraxis** · 03-31-2006, 11:00

Originally Posted by screwtype

Actually, I think it was more like 300,000 troops rescued at Dunkirk, IIRC.

Hitler's thoughts... As well as those of the commadners of Dynamo. That it ended up being that many surprised everyone.

If Germany had captured and treated the BEF nicely, then promissed to send them home at once, I think a peace treaty would be more likely.
With no army left there would be few options, also a proper defeat that didn't involve humiliation would likely generate a sigh but hardly more. If anything the Brits have throughout war always considered honour to be very important (honourable defeats are celebrated like victories and such).

In any case Hitler didn't hold back his infantry. So it wasn't as if he believed in the 'live and let be' of the situation. He just didn't want to waste his tanks, in what should have been a foregone conclusion anyway.

**screwtype** · 03-31-2006, 12:14

edit......

**Trajanus** · 04-06-2006, 07:56

What about Paschaendale?

It was pretty pointless based on the fact that they didn't learn from the mistake of the Somme.

**doc_bean** · 04-06-2006, 18:03

The entire Falklands war

The entire struggle for independence of Eritrea

**Banquo's Ghost** · 03-31-2006, 10:43

Originally Posted by Kraxis

Now why would Hitler think that letting the Brits escape home rather than be captured would induce them to come to the table? Even Hitler wouldn't be that warped.

You may well be right, but I don't think the idea is warped. Hitler always seemed to consider the British to be natural allies, and my understanding was that he believed that the British didn't want to be at war, and that once France was lost, they would see there was no point in continuing. The BEF was beaten - allowing them to go home would give a British government a sort of 'peace with honour'. Annihilating the BEF would simply provoke more hostility in Britain to a peace deal.

There is certainly a lot of evidence that this option was being actively considered by the British government, and that most people wanted to accept German overtures for peace, and in many ways this would have been the sensible option. Think how bleak things must have looked at that time. Churchill took a different view, but had Lord Halifax become PM, things may have been different.

**matteus the inbred** · 03-31-2006, 11:00

Originally Posted by Haruchai

I wonder, would it have been politically possible for Churchill to have sat back as you suggest and let the capital burn? After so many defeats, would the nation have been able to suffer without any sense of fighting back?

Yes, I agree, that would be my main argument. Mostly psychological, particularly with a view to the Americans getting involved. Had we not had Churchill (and those who supported his stance) in charge, quite possibly we would have come to terms.

Certainly Operation Sealion was unfeasible as it stood...in fact, the Battle itself was quite badly fought and planned on both sides in many ways!
I still think that ceding air superiority by not attacking the Luftwaffe over Britain and establishing psychological advantage over the Luftwaffe would have made fleet operations difficult (I think that of they had control of the air the Luftwaffe could have developed a programme to go after naval or commercial shipping targets). It's also important to point out that had the Luftwaffe not lost something in the region of 1,800 planes and crews over Britain, they would have been able to divert resources to the Eastern Front, the Med, and against Allied bombing raids.

Ultimately though, I do think Seamus is right in that it was a battle the Germans did not really need to start, and had little chance of winning.

Originally Posted by Simon Appleton

It was the same day as Waterloo

I thought Wavre took place over two days, with Grouchy 'winning' on the 19th having been held up on the 18th? Bleh. Doesn't matter, as you say, the point is still good...!