dorlomin Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 Thinking about Churchill as the war leader in WWII, I think he probably comes second or third of all the leaders of states involved. US FDR:Biggest economy, impossible to lose but chose to help all who resisted the Nazis as soon as he could politically. He and Churchill saved liberal democracy on Europe. Yugoslavia Tito rather than the prewar leaders. Created an army that was the only self liberated nation in Europe other than the USSR. UK (discounting the Dominions that while independent states did not really do that much on their own.) Churchill, made two decisions that helped save liberal democracy in Europe. The choice to fight on after the fall of France and the choice to back the Soviets after their erstwhile ally invaded them. Finland Mannerheim, held back the Soviets but spoiled it all by becoming a co-belligerent with the Nazis. Still pulled out when it was wise and even ended up fighting Nazis. Denmark (government as a whole) As totally unprepared as anyone else but showed some wits in holding back the worst of the Nazi state for a while then helped their Jews escape. Bulgaria The one axis power that did not invade the USSR, thus the only one that did not suffer catastrophic casualties. Also while it participated in the Holocaust in its occupied territories, refused to deport its own Jews. USSR Stalin: Catastrophic blunders leading up to the war, a criminal almost as great as Hitler. But let his marshalls have much greater influence that Hitler did his generals and thus was able to escape the traps in early 42 and returned to smash the axis into oblivion. Norway Stupid pre war as the rest of the west, but its use of its merchant marine made it a hugely important ally even when the homeland was occupied. Romania, Hungry Sided with the Nazis and invaded the USSR. Even declared war on the US in December 1941, the US kept asking them to undeclare it before something like June 42 reluctantly accepting the state of war existed between them. Italy Mussolini. Braggart, buffoon, beaten. Germany Hitler, brilliantly successful up to September 1942, within a few hundred metres of pushing the Soviets east of the Volga and a few dozen miles short of Cairo. Then catastrophe after catastrophe. France, Belgium, Holland Great plan for refighting WWI. Japan Was engages in fighting the worlds most populous people, China, had the USSR as a neighbour who it had gotten into wars with in the past couple of years and decided to attack the worlds two most powerful navies in case they crapped themselves and surrendered. They did not. Outside of the war Churchill was a complete dinosaur whos day had long since come and gone. He should have been a footnote in history. But during the war the British people needed a voice and he fit the bill. While much of the upper and upper middle classes were either appeasers or faintly pro Hitler, his belligerence matched the countries mood. His management of the war was generally pretty good. He had an encyclopedic knowledge of British military history that meant he was able to set us up for our classic European war. Sitting in our islands, getting involved in lots of peripheral campaigns and slowly building a coalition to eventually win. Britain made a lot of mistakes, but its war. Everyone makes mistakes, has disasters and failures. Britain had few enough of those that we were able to fight across something like 6 of the worlds 7 oceans, across 3 continents and were able to push from being nearly at the Nile, all the way to Hamburg in 2 1/2 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandarilla Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 Bit harsh on Stalin for me. To hold the Soviet Union together through the 30s (ultimately successfully despite the damage done obviously) and be able to force back the nazis takes some doing. Churchill was the right man at the time. Keeping Russia and America together was also incredibly impressive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redstarstranraer Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 There's an awful lot of stuff in there that I don't agree with, but just to pick up on a couple of really daft points: 56 minutes ago, dorlomin said: Norway Stupid pre war as the rest of the west Alright then what 'pre war' should the Norwegians have done that was 'less stupid'? I doubt they ever had any intention of getting involved in any future conflict at the time and had been neutral throughout WW1. Even had they been on full military standby throughout the 30s what exactly do you think Norway ought to have done or could have achieved? What did they not do that the likes of Sweden or Switzerland did to keep themselves out the war? 59 minutes ago, dorlomin said: Holland Great plan for refighting WWI. Holland was neutral in WW1, doubt they planned to 'refight' it. Doubt either Belgium or Holland had any plans to fight any continental war either, criticising them for not being serious military powers in 1940 is just ludicrous. 1 hour ago, dorlomin said: within a few hundred metres of pushing the Soviets east of the Volga Pretty sure the Soviet hold over Astrakhan, Saratov, Samara, Yaroslavl or Nizhny Novgorod was never threatened. Buy an atlas. 1 hour ago, dorlomin said: His management of the war was generally pretty good. He had an encyclopedic knowledge of British military history that meant he was able to set us up for our classic European war. Sitting in our islands, getting involved in lots of peripheral campaigns and slowly building a coalition to eventually win. Britain made a lot of mistakes, but its war. Everyone makes mistakes, has disasters and failures. Britain had few enough of those that we were able to fight across something like 6 of the worlds 7 oceans, across 3 continents and were able to push from being nearly at the Nile, all the way to Hamburg in 2 1/2 years. Nonsense, put down the Max Hastings books and look at the facts. We did not fight our 'classic European war' (and as an aside I'd like it if you could list the others for sake of completeness, aside from the Napoleonic Wars when have we ever fought this war?) by some sort of military masterstroke by Churchill. We did not intend to be kicked out of France in 1940 and be restricted to 'our islands'; it was an unintended consequence of strategic failure. Getting involved in lots of peripheral campaigns did nothing to seriously sap the strength of Germany; it was their campaign in the USSR that took up 75-80% of their resources as soon as they launched it. Our efforts in North Africa and the Med were not in any way decisive, and Churchillian gambits like Norway were a pointless waste of resources, not inspired masterstrokes. If he'd studied his own career rather than British military history as a whole he might have got some pointers but he repeated most of the mistakes he made as First Lord of the Admiralty in the Great War in the Second. The emotive pish about oceans, continents mistakes and the rest does nothing to change that. We did not also 'slowly build a coalition' in that it was the Germans who helpfully invaded the USSR and most of the rest of Europe. We did try our utmost to get aid from the USA but ultimately they entered the war because they were attacked by Japan and then Hitler was stupid enough to declare war on them. Aside from that what 'coalition-building' are we supposed to credit to Churchill (or Britain) then? Without the USSR or USA we'd have been nowhere near Hamburg and you know it. Without the USA we may even have been kicked out of North Africa. Churchill was actually a fairly crap war leader who made a great number of errors. This has already been discussed at length earlier in the thread, so not going to go over these again. He can be credited for his part in rallying the nation after the debacle in France but beyond that his management of the war was not particularly effective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dorlomin Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 34 minutes ago, Redstarstranraer said: (and as an aside I'd like it if you could list the others for sake of completeness, aside from the Napoleonic Wars when have we ever fought this war?) An actual real live tankie. But had you an actual minimum level of history then you would have known about the War of Spanish succession. The English intervention in the Dutch Wars of independence, the seven year war and even Britains intervention in the 30 year war. Quote Getting involved in lots of peripheral campaigns did nothing to seriously sap the strength of Germany; Well if a Stalin worshipping tankie says so it must be true. I mean how much fuel and motor pool was consumed by Panzer Armee Afrika? Total losses of men in North Africa for the Italians and Germans exceeded 500 000 killed captured, 8000 aircraft, 2500 tanks and 70 000 trucks all captured or destroyed. Not to mention all the other equipment. Like so many tankies you are a military genius, or at least play one on the internet. Quote and Churchillian gambits like Norway were a pointless waste of resources, The second greatest general ever says this (thats you). Clearly second only to the GREAT STALIN. But you seem to have left off the argument as to why. Quote The emotive pish about oceans, continents mistakes and the rest does nothing to change that. We did not fight on 6 oceans then. North and South Atlantic, Indian, North Pacific, South Pacific and the Arctic. Glad you cleared that up. Tankies are also the worlds greatest admirals. You can tell, they are experts at everything. Quote We did not also 'slowly build a coalition' i Really. It was just an accident. We were fighting then suddenly everyone else joined in. Just by accident or something. Quote We did try our utmost to get aid from the USA but ultimately they entered the war because they were attacked by Japan They had already had ships sunk helping us, check out the USS Rubin James. Hitler declared war on America largely because of the help they had given us. Quote Aside from that what 'coalition-building' are we supposed to credit to Churchill (or Britain) then? At every point in the war the UK was trying to encourage nations to join. Even occupied nations were very actively courted. Here is just one example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Cairo_Conference It takes a real moron to think the UK was not actively looking for allies., Someone so stupid they will continue to deny they were trying. Tankie. Quote Without the USSR or USA we'd have been nowhere near Hamburg and you know it Yes. I do. Kind that was the UK plan, to build coalitions. Almost as if I had said it. Quote Churchill was actually a fairly crap war leader who made a great number of errors Making errors? In a war. By gods only the worst ever do that. Or something. You off course are a mixture of Clausewitz and Napoleon. The greatest tactical genius ever, yes. Because in my book everyone makes mistakes you clearly have not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redstarstranraer Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 4 minutes ago, dorlomin said: An actual real live tankie. So I'm a tankie because I don't agree Churchill was a military genius. Ok then an actual real live moron. 16 minutes ago, dorlomin said: Well if a Stalin worshipping tankie says so it must be true. I mean how much fuel and motor pool was consumed by Panzer Armee Afrika? Total losses of men in North Africa for the Italians and Germans exceeded 500 000 killed captured, 8000 aircraft, 2500 tanks and 70 000 trucks all captured or destroyed. Not to mention all the other equipment. Like so many tankies you are a military genius, or at least play one on the internet. Eh? What are you doing then you moron if not pretending to be a military know it all? The point has already been made to you that the Germans focused 75% of their resources on the Eastern Front. That's just a fact. Of course the peripheral campaigns absorbed resources that could have been used elsewhere but they were in no way decisive. Who mentioned worshipping Stalin? Like so many morons you are a military genius, or at least play one on the internet. It's quite clear that defeating the Afrika Korps, all four or so divisions of them, was not a decisive blow against the Third Reich. I didn't say they were totally unimportant but that they didn't really decide the outcome of the war. 18 minutes ago, dorlomin said: 1 hour ago, Redstarstranraer said: Quote Quote and Churchillian gambits like Norway were a pointless waste of resources, The second greatest general ever says this (thats you). Clearly second only to the GREAT STALIN. But you seem to have left off the argument as to why. Why was the Norwegian campaign a disaster? Why was the Dardanelles campaign a disaster? You know full well. The Norway campaign was hastily improvised, poorly resourced and planned, and suffered from a crippling lack of air support. There was in fact no realistic prospect it could have succeeded. It was such a fiasco it actually brought down the Chamberlain government, but apparently it was a good idea according to a Winston worshipper like yourself. It was an ill-thought out gamble much like the Dardanelles campaign. The point is Churchill was overly fond of looking for 'peripheral' campaigns in which he hoped to achieve spectacular results by attacking what he often termed the 'soft underbelly' of the enemy. In the first war he failed to knock the Ottomans out the war through such a gambit and in the second directed resources that would have been better used elsewhere on the Italians for the same reason and with not much more success. I may be the second greatest ever general but that's not just my opinion but that of many respected historians (i.e. see my first posts on this topic). 49 minutes ago, dorlomin said: We did not fight on 6 oceans then. North and South Atlantic, Indian, North Pacific, South Pacific and the Arctic. Glad you cleared that up. Tankies are also the worlds greatest admirals. You can tell, they are experts at everything. What has the number of oceans we fought on got to do with anything? I didn't dispute the breadth of areas British forces were engaged in, but the fact that they were doesn't prove that Churchill was a fantastic war leader which was your contention. 51 minutes ago, dorlomin said: Really. It was just an accident. We were fighting then suddenly everyone else joined in. Just by accident or something. Eh? Who said it was an accident? I outlined for you how the major powers entered the war. The idea that everyone 'joined in' because we were building a coalition is truly delusional. 52 minutes ago, dorlomin said: At every point in the war the UK was trying to encourage nations to join. Even occupied nations were very actively courted. Here is just one example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Cairo_Conference It takes a real moron to think the UK was not actively looking for allies., Someone so stupid they will continue to deny they were trying. Tankie. What is that meant to prove exactly? Yes we repeatedly tried to get Turkey to join the war. Yes we looked for allies, who didn't? The point is that it was mostly historical circumstance that brought the USSR onto our side and to an extent the USA, although as I've already said myself we were actively courting them and FDR was in any case inclined to intervention on our side. The idea that the Allies were brought together solely through our diplomacy like you seem to be insinuating is just bizarre. Moron. 57 minutes ago, dorlomin said: Making errors? In a war. By gods only the worst ever do that. Or something. You off course are a mixture of Clausewitz and Napoleon. The greatest tactical genius ever, yes. Because in my book everyone makes mistakes you clearly have not. I never claimed Churchill was the only person to have made a mistake in a war. You seem to be incapable of accepting however he made any mistakes at all. You know, like some sort of god. Or something. I actually said he had made quite a number of mistakes and was a below par war leader, you've actually done nothing to refute any of that other than wail about 'tankies' and 'geniuses' and try and imply that I had somehow belittled the British war effort as a whole. I merely pointed out in fact that without the USA or USSR we could not have 'got from North Africa to Hamburg'. Still no word as to why Norway was stupid or why Holland should be criticised for apparently preparing to refight a war they never in fact fought in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrewDon Posted October 24, 2016 Share Posted October 24, 2016 This thread is much more fun if you read Redstarstranraer's contributions in Mark Corrigan's exasperated rant voice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat(The most tip top) Posted October 24, 2016 Share Posted October 24, 2016 What's this "tankie" thing about? I must have missed a memo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redstarstranraer Posted October 24, 2016 Share Posted October 24, 2016 8 minutes ago, topcat(The most tip top) said: What's this "tankie" thing about? I must have missed a memo By "tankie" he means a Stalinist. Apparently if you don't think Churchill was a military genius or dare to have the opinion that the conflict on the Eastern Front was more decisive than that in the West you're a "Stalin worshipper". For the avoidance of doubt although I hold both opinions I do not worship the "GREAT STALIN", so dorlomin has that wrong as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fullerene Posted October 24, 2016 Share Posted October 24, 2016 15 hours ago, dorlomin said: Japan Was engages in fighting the worlds most populous people, China, had the USSR as a neighbour who it had gotten into wars with in the past couple of years and decided to attack the worlds two most powerful navies in case they crapped themselves and surrendered. They did not. Japan defeated Russia in 1905 and the Battle of Tsushima was regarded as a knock out blow. From then on, Japan was convinced a single decisive battle could decide any war. Hence the attack on the Pearl Harbor. If Hawaii was been rendered useless - would the Americans have been willing to fight on - starting from the West Coast. The Japanese thought not. 6 months later, they tried again - in the Battle of Midway - which was also meant to a single decisive battle. Ironically - it was. They lost 4 aircraft carriers and effectively the war - even if it took another 3 years to conclude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaffenThinMint Posted October 24, 2016 Share Posted October 24, 2016 1 hour ago, Fullerene said: Japan defeated Russia in 1905 and the Battle of Tsushima was regarded as a knock out blow. From then on, Japan was convinced a single decisive battle could decide any war. Hence the attack on the Pearl Harbor. If Hawaii was been rendered useless - would the Americans have been willing to fight on - starting from the West Coast. The Japanese thought not. 6 months later, they tried again - in the Battle of Midway - which was also meant to a single decisive battle. Ironically - it was. They lost 4 aircraft carriers and effectively the war - even if it took another 3 years to conclude. Ironically that Russian fleet which everyone got the wind up over inadvertantly sailed through the Channel on the anniversary of their journey to join the destined to be doomed Port Arthur fleet that gave the Japs such splendid target practice. Not true through that victory gave the Japs any notion of knockout blow victories. Yamamoto and "Gandhi" both though Japan's only chance was six months mad expansion, then seeing what could be held, then seeking terms. They didn't expect the USSR to recover against the Nazis (no one saw the T-34, Pe 2 or the Sturmovik coming) & thus for the Nazis to lose their war before they'd finished theirs. Failing to get the US carriers was the fatal omission at Pearl Harbor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redstarstranraer Posted October 24, 2016 Share Posted October 24, 2016 13 minutes ago, WaffenThinMint said: Yamamoto and "Gandhi" both though Japan's only chance was six months mad expansion, then seeing what could be held, then seeking terms. ^ This. The Japanese never thought they could outright 'win' a war with the USA in conventional military terms but that they would be able to expand across parts of SE Asia and the Pacific and inflict serious enough reverses on the American forces that they would be prepared to then sit down around the negotiating table. They realised that if they were drawn into a protracted war with the USA they had little chance of being able to win it. To be fair to Fullerene though there was certainly an element of the 'decisive battle' doctrine in their planning for Pearl Harbour as they were depending to an extent on that attack crippling the American war effort in the Pacific long enough for them to expand and consolidate their position in SE Asia and also to demoralise the US to the extent that they would be minded to come to terms. Worth noting that the primary goals of the Japanese were the resource-rich Dutch East Indies and British controlled Malaya rather than anything the Americans held, but that the Japanese didn't think they could attack these areas without drawing the USA into a war with them anyway. Some historians have alleged that the USA may very well have not intervened had the Japanese mounted offensives in Indonesia and Malaya but personally I suspect they may well have become involved anyway at some point were that to have happened. Again that's counterfactual history and we'll never know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.