Jean Bart vs. Tirpitz

Historical what if discussions, hypothetical operations, battleship vs. battleship engagements, design your own warship, etc.
iankw
Member
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Rotherham, England

Post by iankw » Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:42 pm

also say and agree that although the Germans fought for the wrong cause, that does not decrease the breavery they showed on the battlefields...
it's just a good thing that German and British ships will never have to fight against each other again....
I couldn't agree more. At the risk of hijacking this thread even more....

Hitler always seemed to believe that Germany and Britain were natural allies. Does anyone have any ideas as to where this came from, and do they agree/disagree with it?

Just a passing thought, sorry for the hijack.

regards

George Gerolimatos
Member
Posts: 29
Joined: Sun May 29, 2005 5:23 pm
Location: Illinois, USA

Germany, Hitler, and Britain

Post by George Gerolimatos » Tue Mar 14, 2006 10:34 pm

Hi,
I'll join in a hijack of the thread (I think the argument was done anyway).
I'm doing a research thesis on National Socialism, and part of it, of course, consists of Hitler's own beliefs. His books, Mein Kampf and his "unpublished second book" (from 1928. His publisher presuaded Hitler not to get it out in print because introducing another book would have competed with the poor sales of MK. In addition, Hitler may have felt that he revealed his hand too much in the second book), Hitler's understanding of foreign affairs usually had Britain and Germany in an alliance against France and/or Russia. Hitler thought the First World War was a "farce" in that the wrong peoples were fighting each other. He believed that Britain and Germany went to war solely for commercial/naval reasons. Hitler believed the Germans and Britons should have come to an agreement. He blamed Tirpitz and the Kaiser for trying to browbeat the British into accepting the Germans' "place in the sun."

Hitler made sure in his books and in his policy until about 1938 never to provoke the British. As for the source of his pro-British attitude, it probably stemmed from open admiration of the great empire that Britain ruled as well as "racial" reasons. The Anglo-Saxons, after all (so the argument went), were racial "brothers" of the Germans, naturally endowed to rule over the Latins (France and Italy) and the Slavs (Poland and Russia). This affinity went to a personal level, and was not solely from Hitler's quarter. Houston Stewart Chamberlain, whose influential 1900 book Foundations of the Nineteenth Century, had great readership in right-radical circles in Germany, including the Nazis. Chamberlain met Hitler and was most impressed with the future leader. Moreover, Chamberlain married Richard Wagner's granddaughter. Wagner was one of Hitler's idols. The connections are many.

Basically, I think the best way to think of the British (from Hitler's perspective) was that they were not so much "natural allies" as they were complementary ones. Hitler's basic plan was to allow the British to "rule the waves" while Germany, as a land power, would gobble up most of Europe. Hitler was well-read in history, so he knew that the French effort under Napoleon had come to nought while antagonizing Britain. For this reason, Hitler argued, Germany mustn't go to war with Britain again.

As the war went on, Hitler could never fully accept Britain's intransigence. He was convinced that the druken, half-American Churchill was ruled by the Jews and American financiers (this is his language, not mine!). I think the best way to describe Hitler's relationship with Britain was a "love-hate" one. He unabashadly admired them, but when they refused to come around, he felt betrayed by them.
George G.

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Wed Mar 15, 2006 4:23 pm

Germany and Great Britain are not natural enemies. Only in the 20th century they became occasional enemies and because a lack of vission of the Kaiser before and during WWI and because Mr. Hitler criminal and inmoral behavior at WWII.
As a matter of fact the historical and natural enemy of the Germans and of the British are the French. An enemy they have always managed to defeat.

George Gerolimatos
Member
Posts: 29
Joined: Sun May 29, 2005 5:23 pm
Location: Illinois, USA

Eh?!

Post by George Gerolimatos » Wed Mar 15, 2006 5:16 pm

I agree that Germany's long-standing enemy was France, but Germany hardly "always managed to defeat" France, if I read your post correctly. Napoleon certainly gave Prussia a good whipping (granted, there was no unified Germany back then, but Napoleon defeated the two most powerful German-speaking states of the 19th century). Furthermore, Germany hardly beat France in WWI. The only real defeats suffered by the French at the hands of the Germans was during the Franco-Prussian War of 1870 and again during May of 1940.
George G.

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Wed Mar 15, 2006 5:24 pm

Blucher. Waterloo.

User avatar
miro777
Member
Posts: 222
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 2:13 pm
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Post by miro777 » Wed Mar 15, 2006 5:32 pm

hey
i would agree with those racial factors mentioned before.
i think, when hitler defined his 'ariens' (no clue how to say that in englsih) u know wat i mean?
well when he defined that, the definitions included Germans, Scandinavians AND the British.
i therefore think that he thought that the british were some sort of 'high' people...

that's Hitler and for he is AUSTRIAN, i cannot associate with him, and who would anyways?
well what i can say about the navies of the two:
the KM and the RN, there always a HUGE respect for the others.
when the survivours of the Scharnhorst came abourd the DoY, they learned that the 'Brits' are not as bad as the propaganda at home tells us.
it's also remarkable that the DoY did NOT put them into russian captivity, what many geramans feared, but send them back to Englans.

adios
miro
Die See ruft....

iankw
Member
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Rotherham, England

Post by iankw » Wed Mar 15, 2006 6:10 pm

Well I'm glad I asked now. Some brilliant contributions here. I've just got in from work, so I need to read them again and have a think, maybe even a lie down :wink:

thanks all

regards

ostriker
Member
Posts: 99
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 1:48 pm
Location: Nîmes, Southern France

Post by ostriker » Thu Jun 08, 2006 3:13 pm

Jean Bart vs Tirpitz isn't real.
Richelieu vs Tirpitz is !

Richelieu 1940 (95%) vs Tirpitz or Bismarck, the german win because french shipyard didn't have enough time to install radar in 1940, and the french ship didn't try her main and secondary guns.

Richelieu 1943 (after refit) vs Tirpitz : No winner ! because the Richelieu had still his problem of dispersion, but she has a radar, and new shell and guns with better settings than in 1940.

But if you want a fight between Jean Bart after achievment and Tirpitz,
there is o doubt in my mind that the french ship will destroy her opponent.
Between these two ships, there are a lot of new tech and JB had new radar, no more dispersion problem, and super secondary armament .

On top of that, Jean Bart and Richelieu managed to run at 32 knot whithout push her engines to 100%, and according to yours post, if the jean bart must escape, remember that her superstructure were flat in order to give a good train, so the german ship must be in back of Jean Bart.

Sorry for my poor english :stubborn: :wink:

ostriker
Member
Posts: 99
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 1:48 pm
Location: Nîmes, Southern France

Re: Eh?!

Post by ostriker » Thu Jun 08, 2006 3:29 pm

George Gerolimatos wrote:I agree that Germany's long-standing enemy was France, but Germany hardly "always managed to defeat" France, if I read your post correctly. Napoleon certainly gave Prussia a good whipping (granted, there was no unified Germany back then, but Napoleon defeated the two most powerful German-speaking states of the 19th century). Furthermore, Germany hardly beat France in WWI. The only real defeats suffered by the French at the hands of the Germans was during the Franco-Prussian War of 1870 and again during May of 1940.
George G.
I will add this:

In a lot of country, in a lot of mind, (in france too), french soldiers, pilot, sailors, didn't fight in 1940. I want to remember to them, that in 1940, the french defeat only result, not because the lack of fight of her soldier, but because of the old men who give the orders...

In a 40 days fight, france lost 100.000 soldiers, destroyed, with the help of belgium and some RAF aircraft, 1000 german aircraft! The "Ligne Maginot was componed of 53 main building". On the evening of 22 june, 45 of them were still under french control. In some of them, fight will continue until 5 july, and stop because all french soldier inside were die! Some people forget, that the first tank vs tank big fight of the war ( of the history ?) was a french victory in Hannut. The village of "Stonne", named by the german "the verdun of 1940", changed of owner 17 time in 3 days !
On the somme, the young men of the infantry shool au saumur, stopped 40.000 germans soldier. To sum up, i will also remember to the stupid guys, french or not french, that the losses daily of germans were greater than their losses in the Russia campaign from march 1941 to december 1941 !

Not bad, for some soldier who never fight.

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Thu Jun 08, 2006 6:21 pm

To sum up, i will also remember to the stupid guys, french or not french, that the losses daily of germans were greater than their losses in the Russia campaign from march 1941 to december 1941 !
Yep. From January 1942 until May 1945 (three + years, not 40 days) the Soviet Union and Great Britain were still fighting and defeating the Germans. Russia pay dearly for that victory with 20 million dead plus who knows how many non fatal casualties. At the end three powers (not four) defeated Nazi Germany: USA, UK and USSR. To say this it´s political incorrect but a thruth anyway. Just open a History Book and see who fought ALONE the Battle of Britain, who sunk the French Fleet at Mers el Quebir, who fought the Battle of the Atlantic, who fought from the river Bug to Moscow, who starved and still fought bravely at Leningrad, at Minsk, at Kiev, at STALINGRAD, in North Africa at Tobruk, at Alamein, who fought Denmarck Straits, who fought in Malta, in Crete, who blew the German A-Bomb plant in Norway, who sent the bombers day and night over Europe, who fought Midway, Coral Sea, Guadalcanal, Tarawa, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, Saipan, Leyte and fought in China, in Birmania, who landed in CASABLANCA, in Sicily, in Anzio, who fought in the Gothic Line, who landed in NORMANDY, who race across France, who fought in Belgium, Holland, Yugoslavia, Poland, everywhere, who tried to cross the Rhine at Arnhem, who fought at Kursk and Kharkov, who fought in Bastogne, who fought for the crossing of the Oder, the Elbe, the Rhine, who fought against the V-1 and V-2, who helped the maquis and all the resistance movements in Europe, who give refuge to kings, prime ministers and "generals" of defeated countries, who reached Berlin and Berchesgarten? Who loan money at incredibly low interests to the "liberated" countries to help rebuild before the commies took over Europe? Who? Who carry the burden of NATO when it became obvious that Uncle Joe Stalin was planning to spend his vacations in the French Riviera? On the other hand who was a pain in the neck to Churchill, who refused to recognise Ike as Supreme Allied Commander when Torch was under way, who refused to speak to the french people to help the allies on June 5th, 1944, who was permited to enter Paris first even when Montgomery and Patton were the ones who "liberated" France and Western Europe? Who was ungratefull enough with the ones who saved them when the ruskies began to look Europe with lust? Who kick US, UK and NATO out of her territory when they needed help to defend the continent from Uncle Joe Stalin? Who doesn´t miss an opportunity to criticise and betray US and UK when the opportunity arises? It´s not the French Foreign Legion the one fighting now in Kabul or Bagdad.
LET´S NEVER FORGET JUNE 6, 1944: H-HOUR, D-DAY, when American, Canadian and English forces landed in the northern coast of France!
That´s all I, a stupid guy, will say from now on about it. Period
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

ostriker
Member
Posts: 99
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 1:48 pm
Location: Nîmes, Southern France

Post by ostriker » Thu Jun 08, 2006 6:57 pm

Karl Heidenreich wrote:
To sum up, i will also remember to the stupid guys, french or not french, that the losses daily of germans were greater than their losses in the Russia campaign from march 1941 to december 1941 !
Yep. From January 1942 until May 1945 (three + years, not 40 days) the Soviet Union and Great Britain were still fighting and defeating the Germans. Russia pay dearly for that victory with 20 million dead plus who knows how many non fatal casualties. At the end three powers (not four) defeated Nazi Germany: USA, UK and USSR. To say this it´s political incorrect but a thruth anyway. Just open a History Book and see who fought ALONE the Battle of Britain, who sunk the French Fleet at Mers el Quebir, who fought the Battle of the Atlantic, who fought from the river Bug to Moscow, who starved and still fought bravely at Leningrad, at Minsk, at Kiev, at STALINGRAD, in North Africa at Tobruk, at Alamein, who fought Denmarck Straits, who fought in Malta, in Crete, who blew the German A-Bomb plant in Norway, who sent the bombers day and night over Europe, who fought Midway, Coral Sea, Guadalcanal, Tarawa, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, Saipan, Leyte and fought in China, in Birmania, who landed in CASABLANCA, in Sicily, in Anzio, who fought in the Gothic Line, who landed in NORMANDY, who race across France, who fought in Belgium, Holland, Yugoslavia, Poland, everywhere, who tried to cross the Rhine at Arnhem, who fought at Kursk and Kharkov, who fought in Bastogne, who fought for the crossing of the Oder, the Elbe, the Rhine, who fought against the V-1 and V-2, who helped the maquis and all the resistance movements in Europe, who give refuge to kings, prime ministers and "generals" of defeated countries, who reached Berlin and Berchesgarten? Who loan money at incredibly low interests to the "liberated" countries to help rebuild before the commies took over Europe? Who? Who carry the burden of NATO when it became obvious that Uncle Joe Stalin was planning to spend his vacations in the French Riviera? On the other hand who was a pain in the neck to Churchill, who refused to recognise Ike as Supreme Allied Commander when Torch was under way, who refused to speak to the french people to help the allies on June 5th, 1944, who was permited to enter Paris first even when Montgomery and Patton were the ones who "liberated" France and Western Europe? Who was ungratefull enough with the ones who saved them when the ruskies began to look Europe with lust? Who kick US, UK and NATO out of her territory when they needed help to defend the continent from Uncle Joe Stalin? Who doesn´t miss an opportunity to criticise and betray US and UK when the opportunity arises? It´s not the French Foreign Legion the one fighting now in Kabul or Bagdad.
LET´S NEVER FORGET JUNE 6, 1944: H-HOUR, D-DAY, when American, Canadian and English forces landed in the northern coast of France!
That´s all I, a stupid guy, will say from now on about it. Period
:clap: :clap: i 100 % agree. my post was not for you, but for all those who still believe that in may 40 german soldiers were like in holidays.

I will never criticize all those who lose their live on the normandy beach. Don't take all french for a band of bastard , of coward. My post was not harmfull!

"Who doesn´t miss an opportunity to criticise and betray US and UK when the opportunity arises? It´s not the French Foreign Legion the one fighting now in Kabul or Bagdad."
-> I know, it is deseperate...


"who fought ALONE the Battle of Britain"
-> hum you forget czech, polish, and a lot of other nationality pilot who were there. And i don't want to be bad, but whithout the channel, in september 1940 England would be i a not pleasant situation. And i wonder how english people could support a four years occupation :?: :?

"who sunk the French Fleet at Mers el Quebir" :oops: URGhh!!! It was really necessary ??? I doubt ! The only result is the lost an old battleship and 1300 sailors !

Don't worry, there is in france a lot of people who respect and is recognizing with all those young guys who lose their live. I am one of them, may be because my family let paid also a tribute, in WWI (Verdun, Somme) and in WWII (Dunkerque)

Regards, Eric

Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Post by Bgile » Thu Jun 08, 2006 7:38 pm

The French army had some of the best tanks and fighters in the world in 1940. I love to talk about aircraft, tanks, etc but this is not the forum for it. :(

I know soldiers individually did their best, just as the individual Italian did but they were facing a new form of warfare not seen before, and their government and military leadership hadn’t prepared and equipped them for it.

I don’t feel comfortable criticising any individual soldiers who fought in that war. We are all a product of our society and the way we live. We should keep politics out of this forum as much as we can.

ostriker
Member
Posts: 99
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 1:48 pm
Location: Nîmes, Southern France

Post by ostriker » Thu Jun 08, 2006 7:42 pm

Bgile wrote:The French army had some of the best tanks and fighters in the world in 1940. I love to talk about aircraft, tanks, etc but this is not the forum for it. :(

I know soldiers individually did their best, just as the individual Italian did but they were facing a new form of warfare not seen before, and their government and military leadership hadn’t prepared and equipped them for it.

I don’t feel comfortable criticising any individual soldiers who fought in that war. We are all a product of our society and the way we live. We should keep politics out of this forum as much as we can.
:clap:

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Thu Jun 08, 2006 8:16 pm

Bgile wrote:
I don’t feel comfortable criticising any individual soldiers who fought in that war. We are all a product of our society and the way we live. We should keep politics out of this forum as much as we can.
Point taken. That´s fine with me. :wink:
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

User avatar
nwhdarkwolf
Member
Posts: 55
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 4:42 pm
Location: Appleton, USA

Post by nwhdarkwolf » Fri Jun 09, 2006 2:22 pm

ostriker wrote:"who fought ALONE the Battle of Britain"
-> hum you forget czech, polish, and a lot of other nationality pilot who were there. And i don't want to be bad, but whithout the channel, in september 1940 England would be i a not pleasant situation. And i wonder how english people could support a four years occupation :?: :?
Well, this is the statement right here. Not to downplay the Battle of Britain, or the lose of the British people to the bombs that were dropped, but...
If there had been no water between France and Britain, it wouldn't have been much of a war, honestly. Think about it for 30 seconds. The Germans had the tanks and that tactics. Blitzkreig worked, and worked well. You put any army up against that kind of onslaught, and Germany wins. Britains greatest ally, and the world's greatest savior, of the war in Europe was the English Channel. Without it, I dare say that we might just all be speaking German right now.

Post Reply