The myth of lonely tiny island of 1940?

Discussions on all aspects of the The United Kingdom & its Empire and Commonwealth during the Inter-War era and Second World War. Hosted by Andy H
User avatar
Andy H
Forum Staff
Posts: 15170
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:51
Location: UK and USA

Re: The myth of lonely tiny island of 1940?

Post by Andy H » 18 Apr 2020 13:15

Ружичасти Слон wrote:
17 Apr 2020 19:38
Andy H wrote:
17 Apr 2020 17:40
Ружичасти Слон wrote:
17 Apr 2020 16:28
Andy H wrote:
17 Apr 2020 13:54
Ружичасти Слон wrote:
15 Apr 2020 15:48

Germany army high command was have simples calculation for to assess potential mobilize war state for enemy. 1 million population = 2 divisions. For Soviet union was estimate 370 divisions.

I was write 200-300 for conservative using of same calculation. British empire population not including dominions was be about 500 million = 1.000 divisions.

In real history British government was choose for 55 divisions like you was write. Who know what was possible if was make decision to mobilize maximum from empire populations in Afrika and India and other places. But in real history British government was choose not to educate mobilize and train populations for to make biggest Afrika and India armys. It was be not necessary to make that choice because Amerika was give so much industrys and troops instead.
Hi

That's a basic a simple/simplistic calculation and if your just putting people into uniforms and calling them soldiers/sailors/airmen, then feasible.
However the RAF pulled in over a million people by 1943 (when the Army strength was 2.7million) and AA Command drew enough people to have formed 12 more divisions. The relative 'complexity' of the machinery of war drew in more people to service and maintain, as did LoC and Supply services. Equally the % of civilian labour required to produce these more complex machines etc, drew down the manpower pool.
I don't have the specifics to hand, but I believe that the UK had one of the highest proportions of its popn involved in either the fighting or support therein of any western combatant.

Regards

Andy H
In real history Britain was make choices for mobilizations of manpower on British island and on other parts of British empire.

Not change fact that was be possible for to mobilize much biggest forces with different choices.
Hi

Well that logic can be applied to any nation but that application would have consequences as they don't exist in a vacuum.

It's like berating Russia for 'wasting' some of its manpower on its Navy, rather than forming X number of extra divisions with it.
Russia out of its popn of some 195million, around 30million served in the military equating to 15%. In the UK the figure was 13% with the US at 12%
Out of all the Allies, Australia mobilised the largest % to serve in the military at 18%, Germany was 23% and Japan around 12%

Regards

Andy H
Yes. Logic do apply to everybody. Different choice = different consequence.

But how many countrys have 500 millions populations to tap?

London was capital of island and empire. Maybe was be 13% for island but was be under 2% of empire populations was mobilized for military service. I not include 4 dominions who was make own decisions.
Hi

Just who in 1940 was going to arm, equip and train these untold divisions and then logistically support them, once they've been formed?

Regards

Andy H

Ружичасти Слон
Member
Posts: 250
Joined: 24 Jan 2020 16:31
Location: Изгубљени

Re: The myth of lonely tiny island of 1940?

Post by Ружичасти Слон » 18 Apr 2020 15:50

Andy H wrote:
18 Apr 2020 13:15
Ружичасти Слон wrote:
17 Apr 2020 19:38
Andy H wrote:
17 Apr 2020 17:40
Ружичасти Слон wrote:
17 Apr 2020 16:28
Andy H wrote:
17 Apr 2020 13:54


Hi

That's a basic a simple/simplistic calculation and if your just putting people into uniforms and calling them soldiers/sailors/airmen, then feasible.
However the RAF pulled in over a million people by 1943 (when the Army strength was 2.7million) and AA Command drew enough people to have formed 12 more divisions. The relative 'complexity' of the machinery of war drew in more people to service and maintain, as did LoC and Supply services. Equally the % of civilian labour required to produce these more complex machines etc, drew down the manpower pool.
I don't have the specifics to hand, but I believe that the UK had one of the highest proportions of its popn involved in either the fighting or support therein of any western combatant.

Regards

Andy H
In real history Britain was make choices for mobilizations of manpower on British island and on other parts of British empire.

Not change fact that was be possible for to mobilize much biggest forces with different choices.
Hi

Well that logic can be applied to any nation but that application would have consequences as they don't exist in a vacuum.

It's like berating Russia for 'wasting' some of its manpower on its Navy, rather than forming X number of extra divisions with it.
Russia out of its popn of some 195million, around 30million served in the military equating to 15%. In the UK the figure was 13% with the US at 12%
Out of all the Allies, Australia mobilised the largest % to serve in the military at 18%, Germany was 23% and Japan around 12%

Regards

Andy H
Yes. Logic do apply to everybody. Different choice = different consequence.

But how many countrys have 500 millions populations to tap?

London was capital of island and empire. Maybe was be 13% for island but was be under 2% of empire populations was mobilized for military service. I not include 4 dominions who was make own decisions.
Hi

Just who in 1940 was going to arm, equip and train these untold divisions and then logistically support them, once they've been formed?

Regards

Andy H
I was write all messages on context for topic The myth of lonely tiny island of 1940 and cartoons about topic.


Was Britain tiny?
No.
Island was have 45 millions populations and was have enough spaces for to be safe from Germany on 1940.
Empire was have 500 millions populations and was have enough spaces for to be safe from Germany for all wartimes.

Was Britain lonely?
No.
Britain was have allys from start of war on september 1939. On june 1940 was be Australia Canada India and New Zealand troops on island. Canada and India troops was in France to. Also was have allys from defeated countrys and was have volunteer from many other countrys. Around empire was make forces from many empire countrys and dominions.

Choices
Before 1940 Britain was decide was not need to educate train and equip millions of people from empire.
On 1940 Britain was decide was not need to educate train and equip millions of people from empire.
After 1940 Britain was decide was not need to educate train and equip millions of people from empire.

Defend island
Was not need 100s divisions from empire on island for to defend island. On 1940 Britain was send troops off island to other places. On island was have enough forces to defend in 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 and 1945.

Win war
Was not need 100s divisions from empire for to win war. Was not need for to build factories for to make equipment in Australia Canada New Zealand South Afrika and empire like was make in Amerika for to win war. Why? Was be because Amerika was join war and make equipment and was give troops.

User avatar
Andy H
Forum Staff
Posts: 15170
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:51
Location: UK and USA

Re: The myth of lonely tiny island of 1940?

Post by Andy H » 18 Apr 2020 16:45

Hi

That's a load of tosh.
Again you apply that rationale to every nation and especially with hindsight.
I'll leave it there, as your mindset is inflexible to the realities of the times.

Regards

Andy H

yantaylor
Member
Posts: 842
Joined: 20 Mar 2011 14:53
Location: Cheshire

Re: The myth of lonely tiny island of 1940?

Post by yantaylor » 18 Apr 2020 19:46

I don't blame you Andy, you wouldnt think that we where the only nation to declare war on German in 1939 and to be still there in 1945. Russia only got involved because Germany invaded them, where were they in 1939, oh yes beating up thr Finns and kicking Poland while they were struggling against the Nazi's.

Yan

Tomg44
Member
Posts: 141
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:10

Re: The myth of lonely tiny island of 1940?

Post by Tomg44 » 19 Apr 2020 09:04


Ружичасти Слон
Member
Posts: 250
Joined: 24 Jan 2020 16:31
Location: Изгубљени

Re: The myth of lonely tiny island of 1940?

Post by Ружичасти Слон » 19 Apr 2020 11:51

Andy H wrote:
18 Apr 2020 16:45
Hi

That's a load of tosh.
Again you apply that rationale to every nation and especially with hindsight.
I'll leave it there, as your mindset is inflexible to the realities of the times.

Regards

Andy H
Tosh was be new word to me. I was find in dictionary. Rubbish. Nonsense.

You was write
Russia out of its popn of some 195million, around 30million served in the military equating to 15%. .... the US at 12%
Out of all the Allies, Australia mobilised the largest % to serve in the military at 18%, Germany was 23% and Japan around 12%
I not disagree.

And you was write
In the UK the figure was 13%
It seems to me that person who was fixate on island population and statistics and was ignore empire has mindset what was "inflexible to the realities of the times.

Figure for British empire was under 2%.

It seems to me inflexible mindset for to think cannot mobilize more than 2% from empire.

Ружичасти Слон
Member
Posts: 250
Joined: 24 Jan 2020 16:31
Location: Изгубљени

Re: The myth of lonely tiny island of 1940?

Post by Ружичасти Слон » 19 Apr 2020 11:55

yantaylor wrote:
18 Apr 2020 19:46
I don't blame you Andy, you wouldnt think that we where the only nation to declare war on German in 1939 and to be still there in 1945. Russia only got involved because Germany invaded them, where were they in 1939, oh yes beating up thr Finns and kicking Poland while they were struggling against the Nazi's.

Yan
On september and october 1939 was declare war on Germany:
Britain
France
Australia
Canada
New Zealand
South Africa
Morocco
Tunisia
Kuwait
Nepal
Bahrain
Oman

How many was be still there in 1945?

yantaylor
Member
Posts: 842
Joined: 20 Mar 2011 14:53
Location: Cheshire

Re: The myth of lonely tiny island of 1940?

Post by yantaylor » 19 Apr 2020 20:11

Well five of those are from our old empire so no surprize, the French captulated as a nation, the other ones are basically laughable, no Soviet union there I see. You know quite well that Britain and her empire went the distance, Russia had to be forced into war, the French army virtually surrendered and apart from small units either fought against the allies or sided with them, so it was their best interest in the end.

Yan

User avatar
Andy H
Forum Staff
Posts: 15170
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:51
Location: UK and USA

Re: The myth of lonely tiny island of 1940?

Post by Andy H » 20 Apr 2020 15:47

Ружичасти Слон wrote:
19 Apr 2020 11:51
Andy H wrote:
18 Apr 2020 16:45
Hi

That's a load of tosh.
Again you apply that rationale to every nation and especially with hindsight.
I'll leave it there, as your mindset is inflexible to the realities of the times.

Regards

Andy H
Tosh was be new word to me. I was find in dictionary. Rubbish. Nonsense.

You was write
Russia out of its popn of some 195million, around 30million served in the military equating to 15%. .... the US at 12%
Out of all the Allies, Australia mobilised the largest % to serve in the military at 18%, Germany was 23% and Japan around 12%
I not disagree.

And you was write
In the UK the figure was 13%
It seems to me that person who was fixate on island population and statistics and was ignore empire has mindset what was "inflexible to the realities of the times.

Figure for British empire was under 2%.

It seems to me inflexible mindset for to think cannot mobilize more than 2% from empire.
Hi

Please answer the question I asked before, who was going to arm, train, support and resupply all these untapped million in 1940?
Also include any negative consequences of the UK/BE having 1-200 Divisions in 1940, because I can think of many.

Regards

Andy H

Ружичасти Слон
Member
Posts: 250
Joined: 24 Jan 2020 16:31
Location: Изгубљени

Re: The myth of lonely tiny island of 1940?

Post by Ружичасти Слон » 20 Apr 2020 20:28

Andy H wrote:
20 Apr 2020 15:47
Ружичасти Слон wrote:
19 Apr 2020 11:51
Andy H wrote:
18 Apr 2020 16:45
Hi

That's a load of tosh.
Again you apply that rationale to every nation and especially with hindsight.
I'll leave it there, as your mindset is inflexible to the realities of the times.

Regards

Andy H
Tosh was be new word to me. I was find in dictionary. Rubbish. Nonsense.

You was write
Russia out of its popn of some 195million, around 30million served in the military equating to 15%. .... the US at 12%
Out of all the Allies, Australia mobilised the largest % to serve in the military at 18%, Germany was 23% and Japan around 12%
I not disagree.

And you was write
In the UK the figure was 13%
It seems to me that person who was fixate on island population and statistics and was ignore empire has mindset what was "inflexible to the realities of the times.

Figure for British empire was under 2%.

It seems to me inflexible mindset for to think cannot mobilize more than 2% from empire.
Hi

Please answer the question I asked before, who was going to arm, train, support and resupply all these untapped million in 1940?
Also include any negative consequences of the UK/BE having 1-200 Divisions in 1940, because I can think of many.

Regards

Andy H
I was think before and i think now your questions is not relevant and not serious.

1. How is answer for who is arm train and support on 1940 for to affect is Britain tiny or lonely? Topic is myth for tiny and lonely. Somebody can to give any answer and population on island and on empire not change.

2. Why must to be for 1940? When ask question specific to small period june - december 1940 is for to missdirect and for to misslead.

Question was ignore what i was write already.

I was write on 14.april answer to question. In 1940 was not be possible. Until 1944 or 1945 was be possible.
Ружичасти Слон wrote:
14 Apr 2020 21:59

Yes. I agree with most what you was write.

About topic:
Island was not be tiny and was not be lonely. Words was be myth.

But what about point of words and idea for cartoon? Was it be propaganda to try to get Amerika for to be in war? Maybe. Was it be defeatest message to peoples after Dunkirk to say was be impossible to win war and best idea must to be surrender? Maybe.

Army was small by choice. But island was not need big army. Island was need big navy and airforce. Small army was not be problem. Germany was not can invade for 100 divisions in 1940. Channel was like 80 divisions for Britain.

Cartoon was want to give problems was be very difficult. I disagree. In june 1940 after Dunkirk Britain still was have all strategic advantages. If Britain was choose it can to have industrys in Britain and Canada and Australia and South Africa like size in Amerika. It was take time but with Channel and navy always have time. If Britain was choose it can to make 200 or 300 divisions from mens in empire. Was take time but was not impossible. And remember Britain can build industrys and biggest army ever in peace away from warfighting in Canada in Afrika in India in Australia. At same time British airforce can to be dropping bombs on Berlin every night and every factory and every training depot.

So i think Britain was have resources for to fight biggest land war. Not in 1940 but maybe 1944 or 1945. Even without Amerika. But it was not need to do all that because Japan and Germany was so stupid to start war against Amerika and Soviet union.

Situation for Britain was be all about choices. Most choices was be right.
3). Why must be for 1940? When ask question specific to small period june - december 1940 is for to missdirect and for to misslead.

Question was ignore contexts from real history.

On 1940 Britain was be on stage of war for was not be defeated by Germany. For to defend island and for to fight Italy armys in Afrika. Was not need 100 divisions on island in 1940 or 1941. Britain was send divisions off island. Troops was needed in empire was not need on island.

Britain was need biggest army if was decide on next stage of war for to defeat Germany and for to finish war when was no help from Amerika or worstest when Germany was not invade Soviet union.

When was ask question for 1940 it was seem to me mindset is inflexible to the realities of the times.

Interesting question was be
" who was going to arm, train, support and resupply all these untapped million?
Also include any negative consequences of the UK/BE having 1-200 Divisions
because I can think of many.
It seems to me this is better question for what if section of forum as was not happen in real history.
But basic answers i was give on 14.april.
Biggest negative consequence was be British island was lose industry centre for empire many places was have possibility to make weapons and many millions was educate and was learn how to fight and kill.

Britain was make correct decision for island. Was wait for Germany to make stupid decision for to invade Russia and start war with Amerika. Not need 100 divisions from empire for to fight Germany.

User avatar
Andy H
Forum Staff
Posts: 15170
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:51
Location: UK and USA

Re: The myth of lonely tiny island of 1940?

Post by Andy H » 21 Apr 2020 16:13

Hi

The Lonely Island myth is specifically linked to the predicament the UK found itself in 1940 and certainly not after 1941.

Your making it a WI by suggesting the UK/BE could field an army of 1-200 divisions without any context to the realities, complexities and consequences of doing so.
Anyway, I'll leave it there.

Regards

Andy H

Ружичасти Слон
Member
Posts: 250
Joined: 24 Jan 2020 16:31
Location: Изгубљени

Re: The myth of lonely tiny island of 1940?

Post by Ружичасти Слон » 21 Apr 2020 20:12

Andy H wrote:
21 Apr 2020 16:13
Hi

The Lonely Island myth is specifically linked to the predicament the UK found itself in 1940 and certainly not after 1941.

Your making it a WI by suggesting the UK/BE could field an army of 1-200 divisions without any context to the realities, complexities and consequences of doing so.
Anyway, I'll leave it there.

Regards

Andy H
Lonely island myth was be about propaganda after was surprise for Dunkirk.

But Britain was not be lonely and was not be tiny. 550 million peoples was be in Empire and Dominions.

What was be predicament for Britain in real history?

Nobody was say Britain was lonely and tiny on may 1940 before Germany was invade. Was start myth after Dunkirk and after France was surrender. What was be different from may to june? Difference was no France. Empire was still be there. Dominions was still be there. Was be no change in support from Amerika and other countrys. Soviet union was still be ally for Germany. Only change was be France.

Defense for Britain on june was be same for may. Germany army was be closer but defense of island was be about channel airforce and navy. Defense was not be about how many British divisions or how many French divisions. Britain was know that in 1940 and was send troops off island to empire.

Winning war was be about divisions. In may 1940 winning was be for 1942 or 1943 not 1940 with 200 divisions. 150 was be from France 50 was be from Britain and Dominions.

In june 1940 winning war was be about 1944 or 1945 not 1940. In june 1940 was be no France so Britain was must to for make decision for win war. 1.option for to educate train and arm empire peoples in africa and india and other places or 2.option for to wait for Amerika for to come with many divisions.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 7643
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: The myth of lonely tiny island of 1940?

Post by Sid Guttridge » 23 Apr 2020 19:17

Hi Ружичасти Слон,

Countries make war in different ways. The UK had worldwide commitments that meant that it necessarily favoured the navy. It only had conscription from 1916-18 and over 1939-1960. In this it was completely different from all continental countries, which necessarily had conscription against each other almost continuously from the 1870s.

Except in WWI in 1917-18, the UK had never taken the lead part in any major land war on the European continent because it always had allies on the continent who could carry the majority of the land campaign, while it concentrated on control of the seas.

For a year from mid 1940 the UK had no significant land allies left on the European continent. Not only that, but it had lost virtually all the equipment of its still small army. Except for some Polish aircrew, exiled European allies were of very little account in 1940, because they were few in number, unorganised and would have to wait for the British to re-equip themselves first.

Similarly, all the British Dominions were relatively small in militarily usable population and, because the Royal Navy was their first line of defence, they had extremely small regular armies, no conscription and so almost no trained reserves. In the extreme case Newfoundland not only had no regular forces, but no territorial militia at all. It was far more completely disarmed than any of the losing Central Powers after Versailles.

In peacetime the colonial empire had only sufficient regular forces to provide internal policing. For example, in East Africa there were only six infantry battalions (of the Kings African Rifles) and no supporting arms at all. In the West Indies there were no regular colonial forces at all and only a notional militia. Colonial forces were nowhere intended for overseas service. Indeed, they were so weak that, east of Suez, the Indian Army was meant to reinforce them, thereby relieving British Army units.

By mid 1940 only one Dominion division (1st Canadian Division in the UK) was equipped for service. All British divisions had lost the bulk of their equipment in France and no colonial divisions were even in consideration.

The idea that the UK was tiny is nonsense, but I don't know anyone who says it was. Who says the UK was "tiny"?

However, it was certainly much smaller than Germany, having little more than half the Third Reich's population. Without allies, there was no realistic prospect of Britain gaining a new foothold on the continent, because Germany already had over 100 campaign-experienced divisions in mid 1940, whereas the entire British Empire had only one fully equipped division.

Certainly the Empire could do much to redress the balance in later years but NOT in 1940.

So, it is not entirely a myth that Britain was small and alone in mid 1940. Certainly its Axis opponents had far bigger armed forces, were on its immediate doorstep and dominated the entire European continent.

The idea that the British Empire could magic up 200 divisions in 1940 is ludicrous.

Cheers,

Sid.

Ружичасти Слон
Member
Posts: 250
Joined: 24 Jan 2020 16:31
Location: Изгубљени

Re: The myth of lonely tiny island of 1940?

Post by Ружичасти Слон » 24 Apr 2020 11:46

Sid Guttridge wrote:
23 Apr 2020 19:17
Hi Ружичасти Слон,

Countries make war in different ways. The UK had worldwide commitments that meant that it necessarily favoured the navy. It only had conscription from 1916-18 and over 1939-1960. In this it was completely different from all continental countries, which necessarily had conscription against each other almost continuously from the 1870s.

Except in WWI in 1917-18, the UK had never taken the lead part in any major land war on the European continent because it always had allies on the continent who could carry the majority of the land campaign, while it concentrated on control of the seas.

For a year from mid 1940 the UK had no significant land allies left on the European continent. Not only that, but it had lost virtually all the equipment of its still small army. Except for some Polish aircrew, exiled European allies were of very little account in 1940, because they were few in number, unorganised and would have to wait for the British to re-equip themselves first.

Similarly, all the British Dominions were relatively small in militarily usable population and, because the Royal Navy was their first line of defence, they had extremely small regular armies, no conscription and so almost no trained reserves. In the extreme case Newfoundland not only had no regular forces, but no territorial militia at all. It was far more completely disarmed than any of the losing Central Powers after Versailles.

In peacetime the colonial empire had only sufficient regular forces to provide internal policing. For example, in East Africa there were only six infantry battalions (of the Kings African Rifles) and no supporting arms at all. In the West Indies there were no regular colonial forces at all and only a notional militia. Colonial forces were nowhere intended for overseas service. Indeed, they were so weak that, east of Suez, the Indian Army was meant to reinforce them, thereby relieving British Army units.

By mid 1940 only one Dominion division (1st Canadian Division in the UK) was equipped for service. All British divisions had lost the bulk of their equipment in France and no colonial divisions were even in consideration.

The idea that the UK was tiny is nonsense, but I don't know anyone who says it was. Who says the UK was "tiny"?

However, it was certainly much smaller than Germany, having little more than half the Third Reich's population. Without allies, there was no realistic prospect of Britain gaining a new foothold on the continent, because Germany already had over 100 campaign-experienced divisions in mid 1940, whereas the entire British Empire had only one fully equipped division.

Certainly the Empire could do much to redress the balance in later years but NOT in 1940.

So, it is not entirely a myth that Britain was small and alone in mid 1940. Certainly its Axis opponents had far bigger armed forces, were on its immediate doorstep and dominated the entire European continent.

The idea that the British Empire could magic up 200 divisions in 1940 is ludicrous.

Cheers,

Sid.
It is entirely myth.

British empire was not be tiny was not be small was not be alone was not be lonely.

Look at words you was write. First you was write about dominions and exiled europeans but when was try to explain "not entirely myth you was must to write UK on place of Britain or British empire. You must to use trick of words to make empire disappear for to have small. But empire was not disappear in real history. Empire only disappear by people what write about myth.

What was start of myth? My guess is Churchill speech on 4 june. I write small last part for long speech.
I have, myself, full confidence that if all do their duty, if nothing is neglected, and if the best arrangements are made, as they are being made, we shall prove ourselves once again able to defend our island home, to ride out the storm of war, and to outlive the menace of tyranny, if necessary for years, if necessary alone. At any rate, that is what we are going to try to do. That is the resolve of His Majesty's Government—every man of them. That is the will of Parliament and the nation. The British Empire and the French Republic, linked together in their cause and in their need, will defend to the death their native soil, aiding each other like good comrades to the utmost of their strength. Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the new world, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.
Alone = no more French Republic
Alone = British empire (NOT UK not just island)

Churchill was say nothing about small or tiny. Small and tiny was complete myth create by peoples later after they was make empire disappear.

When France was surrender British empire and dominions and other countrys was still be war with Germany. Was be above 550 millions peoples. Was be much biggest than Germany.

Also you can to read that Churchill already think for to Amerika to find divisions for liberation Europe when France surrender.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 7643
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: The myth of lonely tiny island of 1940?

Post by Sid Guttridge » 24 Apr 2020 19:52

Hi,

You seem to miss the fundamental points that the British Empire was (1) largely a collection of unwillingly conquered peoples, (2) industrially largely undeveloped and (3) not only were some parts only just emerging from the Iron Age, but in some minor cases were still in the Stone Age. Very few spoke English and the small native educated middle classes were politically unreliable, because they wanted independence, and could not therefore provide a loyal officer corps of their own. The miracle over 1940-42 is that the Empire held together as well as it did!

It is certainly possible to throw large numbers of ill educated, under trained, poorly equipped, inadequately led, poorly motivated bodies into any war. The USSR certainly did this and paid a terrible price.

However, it was not possible for the British Empire to field the hundreds of educated, trained, well equipped, highly motivated, professionally led divisions, and certainly not in 1940, which is the year this thread is about.

At that stage the UK was faced in Europe by a much larger alliance the combined population of which was three times that of the UK itself. Certainly the UK had an Empire that was probably four times the population of Germany and Italy but, for the reasons stated repeatyedly above, comparitiverly little of it could be developed for modern warfare and certainly not in 1940.

Now, please answer my earlier question - Who ever said that the UK was "tiny"? If nobody said that, then nobody has to defend it!

Cheers,

Sid.

Return to “The United Kingdom & its Empire and Commonwealth 1919-45”