Comments

There is a film which was released in 1965 titled "It Happened Here" which gives an alternate history and has the German army successfully invading and occupying England and shows what happened afterwards.

There were quite elaborate plans laid up by Hitler and the German High Command should England succumb to those wearing the Jackboot, even to the extent of selecting Field Marshal Walter Von Brauchitsch as the man to be the commander-in-chief in the UK .

Had the invasion took place and succeeded all sorts of questions would be raised. What would have happened to the Monarchy, Winston Churchill, intellectuals and those unfortunate enough to be singled out by Hitler for special attention? These islands are no stranger to invasion, Romans, Vikings, Normans all had their time and those influences added to the richness of our history and culture as well as shaping our society in far-reaching ways and it`s fascinating to wonder "what if " the German army had invaded and prevailed.

Blimp
This is far too xenophobic even for a Blimp. Sobers was far better than Botham on any cricketing measure you wish to use.
Botham was an entertainer, but he had his flaws which prevented him from realising his true potential.
Sobers was pretty near flawless.



Jim

Xenophobia is defined as "an unreasonable fear of foreigners or strangers or of that which is foreign or strange". I think you might have the wrong word there jim!

PS Call it an irrational prejudice if you like! But don't call it any other sort of prejudice! I prefer Botham anyway!

The "what would happen if" is very interesting and generated a lot of good and not so good books and movies, but my opinion is that it wouldn't really matter.

Once US entered the war the outcome was clear. US alone accounted in average twice to three times the production of Axis. US manufactured 300.000 war aircraft from 1941 to 1944, an average of 230 per day with peaks of 500 per day. The seas were controlled by Allies even counting the important carnage of merchant ship by German U-boats, mercilessly hunted by destroyers. Merchant Allied tonelage was 6.5 times the Axis. Allies dominated the exctraction of raw material needed for war. While Germany couldn't hide its industry, USA could do whatever they needed. It was a matter of time.

The only thing that could prevent the Allies from a certain victory was Germany scientists getting their hands on A bomb before. But as Germans kicked out the best scientist, they were rather behind Americans and not only because of that. Manhattan Project cost almost 30 billion equivalent USD and employed more than 100 thousand people. Once again, the sheer size of American industrial power made the difference.

If England had fallen before the Americans entered the war, the Americans probably wouldn't have gotten involved in a war in Europe. Where could they have staged a "liberate Europe" invasion?

Iceland would have been the closest point. Otherwise you're looking at fighting your way up Africa to a place where you can launch Operation Torch (the invasion of Free French North Africa) and going from Africa to Italy, somehow hoping that Free France would let you through those mountains.

As for the Royals, etc - they would have fled to Canada. There was already a plan in place where there would a joint US/Canadian defense of Canada (the Americans didn't want the Germans to use it as a staging ground) - and possibly the Dominion of Newfoundland would have been included in that. Many of Britain's treasures had already been moved to Canada for safe keeping and the remnants of the Royal Navy would have based in Halifax.

There was a "we've been invaded - go to the prepared resistant points" plan in place in Britain. Carefully hidden arms caches, underground camps - that sort of thing - with every trained resister vouched for by the head of the local police. Which meant the first thing they were to in the event of invasion was shoot the one man who knew all their names.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_anti-invasion_preparations_of_World_War_II#Plann ed_resistance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auxiliary_Units
has more information on that subject.

Things could have been different - very different - and we owe a debt to all the boys who never came home. They're the ones who made this world what it is.

Goodgulf

No, I'd put Garry Sobers as the best cricketer ever. The man could bat anywhere in the order, he could open the bowling and when he started to lose his zip bowling he turned himself into a more than competent spinner, he was a good fielder too. I never heard of him keeping wickets, but I bet he could have if he'd wanted to. I don't class Benaud and Davo as genuine all-rounders. They were both bowlers who could bat a bit. If you're going to put them in the all-rounder class then you may as well throw in Warne and Mitchell 'I can only bowl well at the WACA' Johnson.

On the subject of great all-rounders we could probably debate it all day long and not come up with a consensus and there has been some truly great players mentioned in various posts but none yet as far as I`m aware that includes either Kapil Dev or Richard Hadlee, two men who surely must feature in any shortlist.

Sir Ian Botham, or "Beefy" as he is affectionately known by his multitude of fans was a truly great all-rounder and a cricketer who had that very happy knack of being able to turn a game on it`s head with either bat or ball. Any man who carries on playing after having his teeth knocked out by a bouncer from Andy Roberts or hits 80 sixes in a season and at a time when hitting sixes was still regarded as a special achievement is pretty good in my book.


Add to that the extra frisson that comes when you take the fight to the "Old Enemy" as he did in 1981 at Headingly then you have the stuff of legend. With his muscular arms clubbing the ball to all parts of the ground and bemused Aussies only able to stand and watch as the man moved to 149 not out and his place in cricketing folklore. Mention must be made of Graham Dilley who performed heroically at the other end and enabled "Beefy" to have the time to accomplish something truly remarkable.

Our Antipodean friends have certainly had their revenge many times since that memorable series but anybody who loves the game of cricket as I do and recognizes greatness no matter the nationality of the player surely cannot fail to acknowledge " Beefy`s" special contribution to cricket.

ps:- If this puts me in the same boat as Blimp then I`m Ok with that, he could read me one of his great stories whilst I man the oars but in truth I`m more Xenophile than Xenophobe and I cannot see how Arthur`s remarks could possibly be misconstrued as Xenophobic in any case.

The "what if" scenario of a successful German invasion of Britain raises the question of what would have happened with Ireland. Some British units would have retreated to Northern Ireland. It is possible they would then have surrendered quietly, but I doubt it. The Germans would have had to invade there. They might have offered Ulster to what was still then the Free State, but Free State resources, even if they agreed to reunification in these circumstances, could hardly have coped with keeping Ulster in order and the Germans would have wanted some key naval and air bases. The scope for conflict between the Irish and the Germans would have been huge and I strongly suspect the end would have been a German invasion of the South to resolve these differences their way. This would have been militarily successful, but the South was full of people with guerrilla experience and the impact on U.S. opinion, given the large ethnic Irish population, would have been enormous.

It's said that the true test of a cricket all-rounder is to ask whether he would be included as a batsman if he couldn't bowl and vice-versa. Both Sobers and Botham would certainly have met that requirement as would Jacques Kallis who at the time of writing is playing a major part in South Africa's fight back against the Aussies (tea on day two of the second test). I'll probably be at Wanderers on Sunday if this one goes to four days.

At the risk of boring our American friends silly with arguments about cricket, I must come down with Jimisim and Seegee about Sobers being the best. I saw Sobers hit 169 odd between lunch and tea at Headingley, and no one could lay a finger on him. His partner Nurse scored a mere 100 in the same time and was barracked for slow play! Sobers could also bowl 6 different balls in one over whereas in spite of being a great bowler, Botham was more one dimensional. I think Seegee you have underestimated the batting abilities of Davidson and (particularly) Benaud, whom I saw hit a memorable innings of 135 at Scarborough. Still, who am I to defend the talents of Australian cricketers?