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 05-11-2014, 05:55 PM
 
48,505 posts, read 96,533,525 times
Reputation: 18301

Advertisements

After Uk and France loss the war in Europe there was a lull. African campaign was in fact a UK leadership move to become offensive.UK would never have been able on it as own weather man power wise or logically able to invade on their own.In fact with Germany developing more and better weapon UK would never have been able to survive. In fact shortly after Normany the UK was financial broke and could no long increase it man power ;so often US division where used in their operations thereafter.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-12-2014, 03:43 AM
 
Location: London
4,709 posts, read 5,026,984 times
Reputation: 2154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazel W View Post
You have that right, too. Our memories don't always get things straight. And different writers report things differently. I'd not seen that online article before. My apologies if I was vague. Didn't mean to be.

That said, I don't remember it being the prime minister that Roosevelt spoke with. I thought it was an ambassador who was to pass the message to the prime minister. I do remember the quote at the end, though. "Ottawa does not dictate to London and London does not dictate to Ottawa."
In May 1940 there were many what ifs flying around. And some panic in the USA over Germany gaining a massive fleet that could be used against the USA. Roosevelt knew full well that the ultimate enemies of Germany were the USSR and the USA. It was clear the USA never assessed properly the state of German forces to mount a successful invasion of England and the state of the RAF, which defeated the Luftwaffe over Dunkirk. The RN was clearly supreme. They also never assessed British industry properly, which was the equivalent to Germany's with the Commonwealth and USA's on top.

The Germans launched the Graf Zeppelin aircraft carrier in 1938 and were planning more:
German aircraft carrier Graf Zeppelin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The US had every reason to panic in high circles not knowing what way the war would turn.

As regards to a German invasion, the British knew the problems of mass landings from WW1, and the all important prompt re-supply and re-enforcement. The Brits thought the Germans might invade, but knew it would not be successful – hence sending tanks to Middle East during the air Battle of Britain. The Germans attacking the French and British in 1940 was at the time thought a dumb thing to do, all the German generals were against it and Hitler overrode them all, but it succeeded against the odds. They may be cocky and attempt an invasion of England, but this time fail.

Many Germans were not stupid. They knew the UK was a large industrial nation turning out state-of-the-art for the time armaments 24/7, also using US industry and had a large well equipped army with heavy armour - most of the army never went to France. The Royal Navy was the largest in the world and the UK had a large air bomber force. Although a lot was lost, a hell of lot of equipment was repatriated from France and much of it did not even get to France. Much of the equipment lost in France was obsolete and the factories were turning out the latest equipment. By the time Germany could mount a successful invasion attempt UK forces were fully resupplied and ready. The Canadians were also bolstering UK forces. Attempting an invasion with towed concrete barges, no navy worth talking of and not even having a proper torpedo plane was suicide, and most top German generals knew that, and even madman Hitler too.

I had an article in an old 70s or 80s "Armed Forces" or "Navy" magazine, or a book review I think. It was about a paper exercise done by British and German military staffs regarding the proposed Sealion invasion operation of the UK. Their conclusion was that it wouldnt work and be madness to attempt it. Especially as the German army were considering it as an "enlarged river crossing". General Jodel said it would be like putting his troops through a British mincing machine. Admiral Raeder said to Hitler, “even if you destroy the RAF fighters I cannot guarantee putting down an army on the opposite shore with the Royal Navy around”.

It appears the US were lacking on analysis at the time.

Last edited by John-UK; 05-12-2014 at 04:21 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-12-2014, 03:52 AM
 
Location: London
4,709 posts, read 5,026,984 times
Reputation: 2154
Quote:
Originally Posted by texdav View Post
After Uk and France loss the war in Europe there was a lull. African campaign was in fact a UK leadership move to become offensive.UK would never have been able on it as own weather man power wise or logically able to invade on their own.In fact with Germany developing more and better weapon UK would never have been able to survive. In fact shortly after Normany the UK was financial broke and could no long increase it man power ;so often US division where used in their operations thereafter.
Please keep up with the thread. You are going on myth and Hollywood propaganda that the USA won the war all by itself. After the fall of France the UK went on the rampage. So much Franco would not join in the war with Germany stating to Hitler he would lose. In early 1941 the UK had defeated the Luftwaffe in two battles, wiped out most of the German surface fleet, Wiped out a large section of the French fleet and also seized many French ships, wiped out large significant sections of the Italian fleet, was freely sailing the Mediterranean Sea, routed the Italian army in North Africa, driven the Italians out of East Africa, maintained a naval blockade of Germany, bombing Germany by air, building up a massive air fleet and were ready to take all the south coast of the Mediterranean. Behind the scenes they were also developing the A-Bomb. You do not get that from the History Channel.

Churchill's plan was always to get at Germany from Italy, southern France and the Balkans, the soft under belly of Europe, not a full head on invasion of north west France.

Last edited by John-UK; 05-12-2014 at 04:01 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-12-2014, 06:36 AM
 
3,430 posts, read 4,227,790 times
Reputation: 1633
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
I don't thing the details of who Roosevelt was talking with is all that important, what is important is that Roosevelt wasn't encouraging Churchill to surrender but thinking of what if (although it does appear that Roosevelt had little faith in the ability of Britain to withstand a Nazi invasion).

Anyway... at least we are debating real history, and not what ifs, or what was it like to live last week.
If you want every detail down perfectly - for which I do not fault you, of course - you will need to find the book and read it. It has been a long while since I read it and I'm sure I may not have it in my memory perfectly. I remember that some of FDR's papers were becoming available and the author referred to those. There's a reason why an ex-president's papers are kept "secret" for a certain number of years after his death. Right? Let situations cool down? And, the more controversial, the more need for a cooling off period. FDR was - and still is, I think a- very controversial person.

I'm still defending Sir Winston, anyway. The OP asked for a comparison. I say he was the equal of the others and, on some points, carrying a much heavier burden. It is wrong to detract from his efforts and successes. I have mental pictures of him sitting in that office trying to hold his country together. How many would want that job in war time? Quite different from sitting in Washington and listening via radio.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-12-2014, 11:13 AM
 
31,387 posts, read 36,919,204 times
Reputation: 15038
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazel W View Post
If you want every detail down perfectly
God knows that I wouldn't demand such a thing... well most of the time.

Quote:
I'm still defending Sir Winston,
There is nothing wrong with admiring Winston Churchill and there is nothing in the historical record that would give reason not to. My point is that within the relationship of the Big Three, Churchill was not in reality and equal partner.

Now, at the risk of offending the moderator gods, I freely admit to writing the op in a slightly "trollish" manner to get us back to discussing real history.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-12-2014, 11:48 AM
 
Location: Aloverton
6,560 posts, read 14,403,369 times
Reputation: 10164
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
There is nothing wrong with admiring Winston Churchill and there is nothing in the historical record that would give reason not to. My point is that within the relationship of the Big Three, Churchill was not in reality and equal partner.
No, he wasn't, because Stalin respected power, and he could see that British power was limited in the ways that affected his world (to the rest, he was indifferent). It's not that the British didn't try to help the USSR; in fact, they ran terrible risks and paid heavy prices for doing so. Take North Africa, which the Commonwealth held at such hazards. If the British had had the wherewithal to transport and risk maybe three infantry divisions and an armored division on a Torch-like operation before US entry, surely they would have done it, because North Africa potentially represented the whole ball game. They didn't. Stalin noticed that this only occurred when the US got into the war and started to gear up. He noticed that the British could spare minimal force to stick up for Greece, but what got a beachhead onto the western European landmass was the Anglo-American combination. I remember in Churchill's memoirs where he reports Stalin making fun of the British, suggesting that they were afraid to fight the Germans.

I think Stalin had little understanding of the global British grand strategic dilemma, and zero grounds to fault them for unpreparedness after sending an ill-led, ill-equipped army to invade Finland, then getting his jock knocked off by the Germans a year and a half later. But with Stalin, what happened yesterday was yesterday; it was 'what can you do for me today?'
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-12-2014, 12:44 PM
 
3,430 posts, read 4,227,790 times
Reputation: 1633
Does the fact that Sir Winston chose not take certain actions prove he was ineffective or didn't measure up to the other two? On the contrary, it may prove that he had the insight to see that doing so was not a wise move at that time.

++As for making Britain's interests his top priority, wasn't that his job? Should he have left his country to fend for itself while he took his troops to some other field of battle? Don't we even, today, fuss about our own presidents making war in foreign countries instead of tending to needs at home?

Unless we are "in the field", we really cannot judge the decisions of the leaders. We may feel they made bad decisions. We may feel we could have done better. But, to judge someone poorly because he didn't do what we non-participants think he should have done is, in my humble opinion, bad policy. I wonder what Roosevelt would have done during a similar blitz that London suffered. What would Stalin have devoted his time to had Moscow been under heavy fire night after night?

I'll give all three five stars for taking on the task and dealing with it. None knuckled under and said "we quit".

I'm finished.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-12-2014, 01:24 PM
 
Location: Aloverton
6,560 posts, read 14,403,369 times
Reputation: 10164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazel W View Post
Does the fact that Sir Winston chose not take certain actions prove he was ineffective or didn't measure up to the other two? On the contrary, it may prove that he had the insight to see that doing so was not a wise move at that time.
You misunderstand. It's not about Churchill, the man, of whom I am a vocal admirer. It is about whose say had the most impact among the Big Three. That had its basis in the power each leader could project, because that relationship was a pure power relationship. Did Churchill wish to see Poland in the Soviet orbit? I believe him when he tells me he did not. He lacked the military power to prevent it, so he didn't fight over it. Take Mannerheim; even had he been the world's greatest statesman, backed only by the military power Finland could project, he could never have been an equal partner; neither could have Inonu of Turkey, Franco of Spain, or King Peter of Yugoslavia. That doesn't mean anything about their capabilities as leaders; it simply means they didn't have the military power to influence events far beyond their own borders. Britain was mainly a sea power, quite naturally, and the only thing Stalin understood about sea was that it was wet and salty and that boats could carry soldiers and trucks across it (and to him, the British had lots of boats, so why not do just that, and immediately?). Build a battleship immune to air and naval attack, capable of shelling Moscow from the White or Baltic Sea, and you'd get Stalin's attention about sea power. Nothing less would serve.

On land, the only way Stalin would be influenced during the war would be by what the Allies could do for him: draw off troops with an invasion, send him trucks, etc. Stalin surely noticed that the Germans deployed the vast bulk of their military in his direction, and even then, Stalin reached Berlin first. That told him that he had the more powerful ground force. And the postwar would factor into his thinking: if the Germans made a separate peace with the Allies (which Stalin feared), and the war continued as USSR vs. western Europe, how would that go? American conceits aside, the Soviets at least would be able to hold onto what they had, unless the Americans struck with nuclear weapons, of which there might not be many. But the country with the power to deploy those weapons in a postwar world would be the United States, not Britain. Churchill did not have the military resources to make him an equal power. It says nothing about his admirability as a man and leader. If anything, it's impressive he got Roosevelt and Stalin to go along with him as often as they did, given that he could dispense with neither. All were negotiating for their own national interests, and that is what is done at that level. One expects nothing else, which is why Churchill did everything in his power to lead or drag the US into a war that did not threaten it. He must have wanted to send Hitler flowers when the idiot solved Roosevelt's domestic dilemma by declaring war first.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-12-2014, 02:24 PM
 
3,430 posts, read 4,227,790 times
Reputation: 1633
Largely, it's the wording of the first question posted that sets my teeth on edge. Quote: "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." Churchill was indeed a real partner and did his part. I don't think I'd want anyone calling me "just a chubby kid that the big boys (or girls) let hang out with them."

Did he do his part? Of course he did. Churchill saw what was coming before it came. I read a report of how he stood up in the House and warned his colleagues about what was going to happen if they didn't step in and stop Hitler's encroachment. He wasn't afraid to speak up for what he saw as right or wrong. Many complain; few actually do. Churchill did.

Could someone else have done the job? Well, the man who preceded him didn't do anyone any favors, did he? As for someone else, we'll never know. Fact is that Churchill did it and did it well. I am not an expert historian. Certainly not where Britain is concerned. But, has Britain ever come so close to a tragic end as in WW II? Or is it just that I am more aware of WW II? Whatever, the challenge to save his nation was on his shoulders and he didn't shirk it.

Much more could be said about the war and its conduct but the OP wants to know about Churchill. Or, wants us to talk about him anyway. I suspect he already has his opinion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-12-2014, 05:21 PM
 
Location: London
4,709 posts, read 5,026,984 times
Reputation: 2154
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
My point is that within the relationship of the Big Three, Churchill was not in reality and equal partner.
It has been explained to you many times how and why he was.
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