Quote:

That was one of the few moments when reading about history, that my jaw actually dropped.  He predicted six months, and in six months, Midway!

There's a lot of options here, so I don't think discussing battle and peace plans will do us any more good.  One last thing I'd like to clear up though, is I know the British morale would be very strong at first, but how would it have fared in an invasion?

Quote:

Rather like Russians then, just not communist.
Woo hoo for victorious Britain in WW1 and WW2.

whow! 
but nothing compared to the slaughters of WW2...

What can be said? War is hell.

Quote:


Surprisingly, yesterday I saw an account of the BoB, from the German perspective. It was much the same, facts and figure etc. They had German pilots being interviewed etc.
Although there was one difference. They dealt very much with the question of Hitler's invasion plans (or lack thereof).
They interviewed German (marines), one of which said that the 'barges' they were training with, were primarily 'Rhine and Seine river barges' with the front cut off and a ramp installed. He said they lost more in the Channel during rehearsals (or so-called rehearsals) that not. They would never had made the trip to England (short as it was, given the ferosity of the Channel at times).

The general feeling was that Hitler never intended to invade. The 'prepararions' that took place on the coast of France were just for show, in the hope that the British would be 'scared' into a 'peace agreement'.

There was no effort whatsoever to cammoflage anything, and one marine said that he was instructed not to use code when transmitting 'requisitions' for equipment and stores! He also said that more than half the 'barges' never had motors fitted, they were the type they use to pull along with horses on the shore!

I've always maintained that Hitler never intended to invade, and I've also maintained Germany never had the craft to mount an effective invasion.
Although I am aware of the inaccuracies of these Doco's (Hagar), I believe that this particular account would be nearer the truth than not.

P.S. Many more soldiers (Army, navy, Airmen) died in WWI than in WWII. The 'rough' worldwide figures for all dead are WWI - 35, WWII 50 million.
As Hagar's figures indicate, the vast majority of deaths in WWII were civilain. Due to three major factors that didn't exist 'en masse' in WWI:

1. Atrocities (mainly German, and Japanese, and sadly also Russians in revenge on germans or their own).
2. Bombing (mainly by the US - in Germany and Japan)
3. Starvation and Disease (mainly in Europe and Chine, but Japan in the latter part).

Although the Trench warfare of WWI was horrific for the Army troops, the civilian populations in most countries were relatively OK - I said relatively! 

Quote:


plus 30,000 in dresden....and many,many more...

Too true, Smoke. About the RAF, I mean. I wasn't apportioning blame or pointing the bone, just explaining the 3 major reasons for the 'hugely vast' difference in civilian casulaties in the two wars. 

I do still think that, given the raids flown by the US over Germany during the day and especially their individual effort in Japan (they would have to be virtually the only contributors to 'civilian deaths by bombing' in Japan - albeit purely out of necessity at the time, in my view), I still feel my qualification of "mainly by the US in Germany and Japan" would still have to be fact. That is if the term "mainly" means "majority" as in more than 50% in total.
But then I may be incorrect, but i would be interested to see estimates of the Civilian casualties in both Germany (by day and by night - if they existed.....) and Japan.

Once again, my purpose here, as before, was simply to demonstrate the reason for the inordinate amount of civilian casulaties during WWII, as opposed to WWI.
I firmy belive that most did only what they thought was right and necessaqry at the time and the motivations should not find their way to these pages.