Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-14-2014, 03:03 PM
 
Location: SE UK
14,808 posts, read 11,888,893 times
Reputation: 9789

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
Huh?

Halifax dismissed thoughts of his replacing Chamberlain because he was a peer and as such a member of the House of Lord's ineligible for the post of Prime Minister? Either way, whoever was the British Prime Minister, I feel pretty confident when I say that nothing short of a full scale invasion of England, the British government would have not surrendered and the RAF put a period on that idea. So unless Churchill was a RAF wing commander I again seriously doubt that the RAF wouldn't have fought as bravely and tenaciously no matter who was Prime Minister.

Which brings us back to the relative powers of the "Big Two Plus One" the U.S. and the Soviet Union, neither of whom Churchill or Chamberlain capable of bringing into the war despite their best efforts. That would change of course as the result of not Churchill, but Adolph Hitler. So once engaged, aside from the decision to concentrate on Europe first - a decision agreed upon in no small part because Roosevelt's had one eye towards Moscow as much as he looked upon London - the strategy for the conduct of the war in Europe was primarily based upon the objectives set by Roosevelt and Stalin against Churchill's numerous objections.

Now so far, all I've read in rebuttal has been to argue that Churchill was a great orator and inspiration to his people etc, etc.. all things that I believe to be true, but, I've yet to read an argument that demonstrates that how's and wherefores to defeat Hitler were based upon Churchill's influence as opposed to Roosevelt and Stalin.
You have to be kidding if you think Churchill had no influence in defeating Hitler! I mean cmon! Churchill was the only one who had the b*lls to face Hitler head on while everybody else were cowering, the French said the British would roll over and have their necks 'wrung like a chicken' Churchill basically stuck up two fingers and said 'come and have a go if you think you're hard enough'. if it wasn't for Churchill the British government may have 'cowered' like all the other governments, if it wasn't for Churchill there wouldn't have been DDay, as soon as Churchill stood up to Hitler it meant that ultimately Hitler would lose the war. Churchills influence on the war was immense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-14-2014, 03:37 PM
 
31,387 posts, read 36,906,291 times
Reputation: 15038
Quote:
Originally Posted by easthome View Post
You have to be kidding if you think Churchill had no influence in defeating Hitler!
Read the thread! Aside from defeating Hitler, Churchill's primary objective was to preserve the empire, both Roosevelt and to a lesser again Stalin, opposed that. Churchill opposed the control of eastern Europe falling to the Soviet Union, Poland in particular, Roosevelt did not, and that is just on the strategic level.

Quote:
Churchill was the only one who had the b*lls to face Hitler head on while everybody else were cowering,
That will come as news to the Czechs, and the Poles.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-14-2014, 03:59 PM
 
Location: SE UK
14,808 posts, read 11,888,893 times
Reputation: 9789
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
Read the thread! Aside from defeating Hitler, Churchill's primary objective was to preserve the empire, both Roosevelt and to a lesser again Stalin, opposed that. Churchill opposed the control of eastern Europe falling to the Soviet Union, Poland in particular, Roosevelt did not, and that is just on the strategic level.



That will come as news to the Czechs, and the Poles.
Aside from 'defeating Hitler' lol,
Massive respect to the Czechs and Poles but as ultimately they were overrun with comparative ease I wouldn't suggest for one moment that their heads of government had anything like as much influence in the outcome of the war as Mr Churchill.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-14-2014, 04:00 PM
 
1,267 posts, read 1,239,057 times
Reputation: 1423
Yet another thread attempting to belittle Great Britain's contribution to WW2? Or is the OP playing devil's advocate? Whichever it is, it's pretty pathetic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-14-2014, 05:26 PM
 
Location: London
4,717 posts, read 5,024,090 times
Reputation: 2154
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
Which brings us back to the relative powers of the "Big Two Plus One" the U.S. and the Soviet Union, neither of whom Churchill or Chamberlain capable of bringing into the war despite their best efforts.
You are just regurgitating the same nonsense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-14-2014, 08:50 PM
 
Location: Miami, FL
8,087 posts, read 9,776,680 times
Reputation: 6650
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
Of the Big Three, Roosevelt, Stalin and Churchill was Churchill a real partner or just the chubby kid that the bigger boys let hang out with them. After all, outside of defeating the Germans Churchill's wartime objectives, thwarting the invasion of France, keeping Poland out the Soviet sphere and more importantly the preservation of the British Empire were pretty much ignored by Roosevelt and Stalin. In short would it have matter who was Britain's prime minister during the war, the outcome would have been the same.

(I may have to take JohnUK off my ignore list just for the amusement of it all)
I presume you mean in face to face meetings from the underlined above. That is how it is written.

Two different time frames here as Big Three is properly from late 1943(Tehran) thru late war. From May 1940 to June 1941 it was strictly The Big One-Churchill. USSR was near defeat through much for 1941 and 1942 and the USA was dealing with mobilization during 1942. Stalin not present at Casablanca.

Also two different questions here as in one you are indicating Churchill was immaterial as PM in that anyone would have done as the ending would be the same and the other indicates that the Roosevelt and Stalin was not a real partner of the Big Three.

With respect to Churchill not being a full fledged member of the Big Three:

The ground forces campaign, whether in the ETO or MTO, required every item to be shipped from a some Allied port. If ETO then a British port to the Continent; if an MTO destination then from an African port with origin either in the UK, USA,or allied base worldwide.(chances are that base was of BC origin or control) The majority of the escort was British Commonwealth navies. USN pitifully small in the ETO and a bit larger in the Med. but British Commonwealth naval forces predominated. Convoys to the UK were primarily escorted by BC forces. The majority of convoys to Russia were solely BC escorted or formed the primary forces. Also managed by the RN in the UK. These aspects alone would provide a seat of importance to the senior British political leader.

Only portions of the British Empire requiring recovery were Hong Kong and Burma.(Guernsey?) and these were reoccupied immediately after the surrender. Break up of the BE not related to actions by the US/USSR. Britain still behaved an Imperial manner as late as 1956 with the Suez Crisis.

Delaying the invasion of France until Allied forces predominated and the Allied ground forces were seasoned and German ones weakened is in retrospect one of the best motions Churchill had.

Bomber Command became an extremely effective force late war with tremendous strategic capabilities in 1945. A force which could not be ignored when calculating national power and importance.

The British Commonwealth provided and managed a massive linkage of bases worldwide for the Allies and particularly US effort(Australia,) in other theatres.

Whatever Roosevelt's actions at Tehran in attempting to befriend Stalin at Churchill's expense one must be aware that he was not a professional diplomat and had already committed a serious international strategy error at Casablanca regarding announcing that only Unconditional Surrender of Germany would be accepted.

SHAEF was filled with senior British officers who provided direction and cooperation to primarily US officers who were relative newcomers to planning operations in the ETO. Eisenhower valued his British colleagues and he was Supreme Commander for that theater.

British Supreme Commanders and their staffs were in command in the MED, Middle East, Africa and SE Asia.

British forces were much stronger than the small ground army in the ETO/MTO would suggest. At the setting of Tehran the British were much more important actors in the ground and air war than the USA. Certainly always the naval war outside of the PTO. Ground and air war contribution predominance would be visibly different at Yalta. I do not think you are including Potsdam.

The "it would not matter who was PM" is touching on alternative history and not my area.
BUT it could be said that only Churchill harassing, threatening his theater commander in NA, Wavell to take offensive action NOW, lead him to order O'Connor to attack and roll up the Italians in NA leading to German intervention in the NA leading to Torch being selected as the offensive operation late in 1942(most logical manner to end the NA campaign-two front approach) leading to the Allies being embroiled in the MED for 1943 and gain experience and allow the Germans to be further drawn in and weakened there and in other theaters. Which then allows for perfecting the attributes necessary for a proper army group sized amphibious invasion to include intelligence operations of France in 1944 which leads to the end of the war. THE END.

But I do not do alternative history...

Last edited by Felix C; 05-14-2014 at 09:32 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2014, 02:44 AM
 
Location: London
4,717 posts, read 5,024,090 times
Reputation: 2154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Felix C View Post
Only portions of the British Empire requiring recovery were Hong Kong and Burma.(Guernsey?)
By war's end Burma was partially recovered as the troops were scything into the Japanese running down Burma. 100,000 British troops were to invade Malaya/Singapore in the first week of September 1945, the Japanese signed the surrender the same week. Guernsey was by-passed. The Germans thought the Brits would invade the Channel Islands, so reinforced the islands. The allies went past them locking up a whole pile of German soldiers and equipment rendering them useless and unable to participate in the war in France.

Bomber Command became an extremely effective and exceptional force with the introduction of the Tallboy and Grand Slam bombs. Only one Grand Slam could be carried by a Lancaster. 300 hundred Grand Slams dropped on a city would render that city completely destroyed.

The British Commonwealth's world-wide bases were vital. All knew that.

At Tehran in Nov 1943 if anyone was a minor partner, which no one was, it was Roosevelt. Stalin and Churchill were key in defeating the Germans at that point. No one at the point could have thought the British Empire was spent which it was not. It looked as strong as ever. El Alemein and Stalingrad were a year before and the Med had been turned into an allied Lake with troops pushing up Italy - a minor second land front had emerged beside the front of the bomber force. Without the British that would not have been possible and Stalin knew that.

Eisenhower was Supreme Commander for the ETO because Churchill offered that position to the Americans to get them to accept Germany first. The US naturally was assumed a Brit would be in change being in the backyard.

The Italians being rolled up in North Africa led to German intervention because British troops were taken from North Africa to Greece. Churchill said it was his biggest mistake of WW2.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2014, 05:22 AM
 
Location: Miami, FL
8,087 posts, read 9,776,680 times
Reputation: 6650
Oops overlooked about Malaysia/Singapore. Thanks.

Churchill was referring to diverting troops to Greece which I never referenced.

Last edited by Felix C; 05-15-2014 at 05:34 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2014, 07:25 AM
 
Location: London
4,717 posts, read 5,024,090 times
Reputation: 2154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Felix C View Post
Oops overlooked about Malaysia/Singapore. Thanks.

Churchill was referring to diverting troops to Greece which I never referenced.
To the Germans fighting in NA was better than fighting the British on the European mainland. The Germans were using men and resources that could have been used against the USSR, so the Brits helped the Soviets there in a way.

If the Brits had expelled the Italians out of NA and the Germans could not have a foothold, then they feared the British would use troops on Continental Europe, which they would have. Most probably in the "soft underbelly of Europe". Controlling all the African side of the Med would make it easier to mount such an operation.

The British 14th Army in the east was a million strong. Most of Burma was taken from the Japanese. Rangoon, the capital in the extreme south was taken in April/May 1945. These troops were poised to move south and meet up with the invading 100,000 in Malaya. The Japanese air force and navy were near absent in Malaya and Singapore. No supplies were getting through. British troops fought for another year into 1946 in Viet Nam.

Last edited by John-UK; 05-15-2014 at 07:40 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2014, 08:09 AM
 
Location: Miami, FL
8,087 posts, read 9,776,680 times
Reputation: 6650
To the British fighting the Germans in NA was much, much better than in Europe as German strength would always be limited due to logistics which favored the British approach of warfare in raiding these soft lines. Britain fought the Axis post May 1940 thru late 1942 as they did Napoleon. NA analogous to the Peninsular Campaign, Greece to Walchren. Vichy possessions to the Caribbean, Indian and South Africa. I believe Michael Howard wrote about this.

There is no soft underbelly for Europe. Use a map with topographical features as reference and the terrain does not favor mechanized or manuever warfare. Easier to supply a multi-army group invasion force from across the Channel than from the limited capacity of NA ports to southern Europe. All of the bases and logistics had already been in place in the UK for some time and were buildup prior to 1944. Then there is the established air power assets already based there,etc.etc. Always had to be Northern France.

I am not SE Asia knowledgeable and so trust to your info. regarding 14th...

Last edited by Felix C; 05-15-2014 at 09:16 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top