soc.history.war.world-war-ii

"Louis C" wrote in message
news: @ ...
> "L2007" wrote:
>> The battle of France was a luke warm British response, to the scorn of
>> the
>> French, with much of the army and its latest equipment staying firmly in
>> the
>> UK.
>
> Nonsense.
>
> The best units and equipment were sent to France, most of the
> equipment was lost along with 68,000 casualties. And that was
> considered a miracle.
>
> What remained in the UK were training units, and the "latest
> equipment" had to include emergency purchases of WWI equipment with
> the US to help tide the British over until domestic production made
> good the losses.

Do a google on this newgroup onn this topic.

>> The US never came over with their
>> navy to bail out on that one either.
>
> When at last the British made a successful return to the Continent it
> was as part of an Allied force with a large US component.

But the UK was not crippled.

> So you're wrong again.
>
>> Crippling? No, as a large army and its equipment was massed in the UK.
>
> Well, an even larger army was massed in the UK at the time of
> Singapore than had been in the UK after the fall of France, so why do
> you call Singapore a crippling defeat?

It was conclusive and to a numerical inferior force. Many revisionists state
if handled properly the Japanese would have be defeated - although that is
another story...and similar in France.

>> > Or maybe such military successes
>> > as Greece and Gazala?
>>
>> Greece? You mean primarily Crete.
>
> More equipment was lost in Greece than
> in Crete though yes, I did lump
> the two together.

Again a luke warm resposne from the Britush.

>> Hardly crippling was it? It didn't stop
>> the British fighting in the desert just south of the Med.
>
> Singapore didn't stop the British
> fighting either,

OK so Singapore was not a crippling defeat - just an embarrassment.