 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
well, the brits did Iraq in 1916, Syria in 1918, but they don't fit into Iran.
The Romans certainly hit Syria before going after the Sassanids in Mesopotamia.
So the Ottomans and their fast campaign vs the mamlukes? Thought I still don't get iran there. |
1941.
In April - May into Iraq, overthrowing the pro-Axis govt of Rashid Ali. German and Italian airplanes had arrived in Mosul, after Brits (pursuing a treaty that gave them rights to move troops through) sent a couple of Indian divisions to Basra, and left them there. The Iraqis surrounded a brit airbase in Habbaniya, near Fallujah, and the tiny base held them off till the relief column came from Palestine. Wavell had suggested holding off, but Churchill insisted on going in.
Then in June they took out the Vichy forces in Syria, who had been dabbling with the Axis as well. Fairly bloody,
and Free French played a role. Attack was launched from Isr - oops, Palestine, and from Iraq.
Later that summer they went into Iran (jointly with the Russians) since the old Shah was letting German agents move freely in the country. It was feared they would sabotage the Railroad to Russia, which was intended as a route for lend lease aid (also they might threaten oil facilities) Brits/indians came in from Iraq, Russians from the north, Shah abdicated in favor of his son (i think), a young man destined for a controversial career.
Been reading " The Grand Alliance" and its rather striking.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Proteus_MST
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
|
The Battle of the Bulge was AFAIK also the first time,
where tanks with real nightfighting capabilities were used
(Panthers with IR-Device Uhu)
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
|
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
The brits did not invade Iraq in 1941, they were already there and deposed the government
Also, they went first into Lybia (1940) that time. |
They had a couple of divisions in Basra, and a small air base in Habbaniya. Rashid Ali deposed the regent, and proceeded to besiege Habaniya. Without relief by land and air, it was clear the British position was unsustainable. So they made a military move into Iraq, to restore the security situation, and the regent. You can quibble about calling that an invasion if you wish. From the point of view of allocation overstretched forces, it certainly looked like one.
They did NOT overthrow Rashi Ali only with forces already present. They required a the Habanniyah Relief Force ("Habforce") a full British brigade, to come over the desert from Palestine, to relieve Habbaniyah, and then move on to Baghdad . Also additional forces from India were sent to Basra.
Gen Wavell : "Force from Palestine can relieve Habbaniya, and hold apporaches from Baghdad to prevent further advance on Habbaniyah; but it is not capable of entering Baghdad against opposition or maintaining itself there ... In order, therefore, to avoid a heavy military commitment in a non-vital area, I still recommend tthat a political solution be sought by all available means "
As for Libya, i was thinking of Operation Crusader, which was in November 1941. Of course they also went into Libya in December 1940, but were chased out by Rommel. And Wavell attacked Libya to relieve Tobruk in June of 1941. And Montgomery went into Libya, for the last time, in 1942 after Alamein. Of course i didnt say it was the ONLY time they invaded Libya And of course it was an afterthought, to help people who didnt get the first three invasions.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
|
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:17
|
|
if Rummy ran WW2
"what this 5 divisions on the beaches, plus 2 airborne? And whats this about dozens of follow up divisions, masses of equipment? ****, somebody toss this out and get me a plan without so much overkill = How about we land with 3 divisions, and then add another 2 or 3 the month after the landing. Hell, theres no war without risks, you know, no plan survives contact with the enemy, ...... - and besides, if we have too many troops in France, the French will become dependent on us and wont build their own forces"
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Comrade Tassadar
|
|
LOL IF YOU CRITICISE THE IRAQ WAR ITS LIKE CRITISIZING WW2 LO!L
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
|
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:17
|
|
i guess the point is that its sometimes hard to tell whos winning. D Day isnt that good an illustration. Much better is to look at how desperate things looked for the UK in the early years. And not just when things really were desperate, in 1940, but even after.
For example in May 1941, theyd just screwed up an offensive in Libya. Theyd lost thousands of troops, and several ships, in the evacuation from Crete, only the latest in a string of German triumphs. They didnt have enough troops to deal with the Vichy forces in Syria, and had barely won in Iraq. Sinkings in the Atlantic were high, and the Luftwaffe had just destroyed the House of Commons (the building, not the members)
The whole war was seriously screwed up. Yet in retrospect we know that they were well on their way to victory.
which doesnt prove a thing about Iraq today, but it does tell us something about the need to look beyond the headlines to the underlying strategic questions.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
17-12-2004 21:42
|