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 06-03-2014, 08:53 AM
 
4,449 posts, read 4,597,077 times
Reputation: 3146

Advertisements

Quote:
Churchill got his way most of the time.
Of course the man had a powerful personality. I lament it though that he wasn't listened to when it came to the Soviets and Berlin. He should have bellowed and bellowed and bellowed until he got his way on that situation. He was 'right' on probably one of the biggest political and geographical upheaval in the 20th century.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-03-2014, 11:48 AM
 
Location: London
4,709 posts, read 5,034,855 times
Reputation: 2154
Quote:
Originally Posted by travric View Post
Of course the man had a powerful personality. I lament it though that he wasn't listened to when it came to the Soviets and Berlin. He should have bellowed and bellowed and bellowed until he got his way on that situation. He was 'right' on probably one of the biggest political and geographical upheaval in the 20th century.
Churchill not only had a powerful personally, he was skilled diplomatic manipulator. In order to get Germany First, which the USA saw no need for as the Japanese had wiped out much of their Pacific fleet so saw them as the prime enemy, he insisted an American be in charge of European operations. They bought it. He got his way. Ultimately the Brits got their way 90% of time in Europe, except at the end when US forces spread out on a broad front while Churchill wanted a full combined thrust to Berlin. Occupying land was prime to Churchill as he did not trust the Soviets to adhere to prior agreements.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-04-2014, 10:24 AM
 
4,449 posts, read 4,597,077 times
Reputation: 3146
Quote:
Occupying land was prime to Churchill as he did not trust the Soviets
to adhere to prior agreements.
You know during that time when the Allies were just about to see 'victory in Europe' Churchill noted that 'beneath these triumphs lie poisonous politics and deadly internation rivalries'. Churchill and the Allies at that time were made aware of 15 Polish emissaries who were called to a Russian conference in Warsaw. When they showed up they were then put in prison in Moscow. This was for activities against the Red Army during the war. Stalin complained about how Churchill and the government responded in protest against the arrests considering the cicumstances. All in all, this was no doubt a relatively side issue in the significance of VE day but to Churchill it no doubt solidified his wariness of Soviet behavior and intentions as the war wound down. Surely Churchill was a very prescient fellow when it came to gauging post-war history.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-04-2014, 04:12 PM
 
447 posts, read 730,747 times
Reputation: 366
.

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.


They also went with an American supreme comander because they knew the USA would supply the most troops in the ETO before the war was over and felt the USA would want and American supreme comander since the USA would be supplying the most troops. Ron
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-04-2014, 04:18 PM
 
447 posts, read 730,747 times
Reputation: 366
Quote:
Originally Posted by John-UK View Post
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.


Actually the 14th army was very close to a million strong (970,000) but only 127,000 were British troops as the rest were from thier colonies. India supplied the most of 581,000. And I understand this as Britian was tapped out for man power which is no fault of theirs as their country was only 46 million strong so they contributed alot of troops per their size. Ron
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-04-2014, 11:49 PM
 
Location: London
4,709 posts, read 5,034,855 times
Reputation: 2154
Turkish ambassador to the UK Rauf Orbay said "the British will not be beaten. There is no doubt that an Empire capable of raising 45 million soldiers will gain the final victory". The Turks wisely never joined the German side declaring war on them in 1945. The British Indian Army was two million strong. The problem was supplying them quickly. When wars start, armies increase greatly and rapidly in size. The supply was where the USA factories came in to assist. The UKs industry was a similar size to Germany's and could not cope.

When Germany and Japan went to war with the UK they went to war with about 1/4 of the world's people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-04-2014, 11:52 PM
 
Location: London
4,709 posts, read 5,034,855 times
Reputation: 2154
Quote:
Originally Posted by 383man View Post
They also went with an American supreme comander because they knew the USA would supply the most troops in the ETO before the war was over and felt the USA would want and American supreme comander since the USA would be supplying the most troops. Ron
The UK could supply the needed troops from its massive empire, but the USA nicely offered theirs saving the UK the bother. Churchill said "gives us the tools and we will do the job". US industry was needed to get the war over quickly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-05-2014, 12:02 AM
 
Location: London
4,709 posts, read 5,034,855 times
Reputation: 2154
Quote:
Originally Posted by travric View Post
but to Churchill it no doubt solidified his wariness of Soviet behavior and intentions as the war wound down. Surely Churchill was a very prescient fellow when it came to gauging post-war history.
He kept Stalin at arms length not trusting him all though WW2. He knew what he would be like with the upper hand and after victory. Roosevelt requested that the Soviets attack the Japanese in Manchuria to assist the USA and UK. Churchill did no such thing knowing the power of the Red Army in 1944-45. Churchill would rather the Chinese finish off the Japanese in China. The Soviets got into Korea causing a war after WW2. Roosevelt was rather naïve at times. He also publicly stated "unconditional surrender" for the Germans and Japanese. This caused them to needlessly fight on. In fact Japan's surrender was not unconditional, they insisted the emperor remain, and this was agreed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-05-2014, 11:36 PM
 
447 posts, read 730,747 times
Reputation: 366
Quote:
Originally Posted by John-UK View Post
The UK could supply the needed troops from its massive empire, but the USA nicely offered theirs saving the UK the bother. Churchill said "gives us the tools and we will do the job". US industry was needed to get the war over quickly.

I dont know about that. India had the most troops in their empire that I know of which was 2 million but they were not very well trained for amphibious landings and armored fighting like in Europe. And it would not be easy to get the Indian troops to Europe and then the Brits would have to give them some training and equip them as I am not knocking the Indian troops but they were not trained to work in armored divisions as far as I know. I mean if they could I would think they would have considered it in 1940 when thier army was hurt and they were worried the Germans will attack if they can. And they also have Canada , New Zealand and Austrailia but I dont believe none of them had even a million troops each as they were low populated countries of barely 10 million in each one. Which is no fault as they sent the troops they had and fought as bravely as any troops but they just did not have alot which is no fault of theirs. And we know that out of a million troops in a country only about half of them would be as front line combat troops. But thats with any country. And please dont take this as a bashing or offensive as I am not knocking the great effort from any of the countries mentioned I am just going by facts that I have read and believe to be correct. Maybe I look at it wrong but even though these countries were part of the British empire during the war myself I dont consider them British soldiers. I mean I think of them as Canadian or Indian or soldiers of the country they come from. Ron
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-05-2014, 11:38 PM
 
447 posts, read 730,747 times
Reputation: 366
Quote:
Originally Posted by John-UK View Post
Turkish ambassador to the UK Rauf Orbay said "the British will not be beaten. There is no doubt that an Empire capable of raising 45 million soldiers will gain the final victory". The Turks wisely never joined the German side declaring war on them in 1945. The British Indian Army was two million strong. The problem was supplying them quickly. When wars start, armies increase greatly and rapidly in size. The supply was where the USA factories came in to assist. The UKs industry was a similar size to Germany's and could not cope.

When Germany and Japan went to war with the UK they went to war with about 1/4 of the world's people.

I dont know where the empire was going to get 45 million soldiers ? Please elaborate. Ron
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. The time now is 08:19 PM.

© 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