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.
Without the US, England would have been either Vichy England
or a rubble heap. Quite possibly a radioactive rubble heap.
Amazing. The brain of America shouts up. It was the other way around dear Sir. After Dec 1941 the UK told the US how to do convoys. Admiral King ignored them and the U-Boats picked off 600 vessels off the US eastern seaboard in six months. How bright ! The Brits were pleading with the US and offered them corvettes. After Pearl Harbour the RN moved over to protect the US eastern coast.
For those who think Britain could have beaten the Nazis all alone, you might reflect upon the letter Churchill sent FDR just prior to FDR pushing the "Lend Lease" program through Congress. In that letter, Churchill tells FDR that Britain is out of money to pay for armaments and that America needs to come up with a way to get Britain arms without the necessity of payment. Lend Lease was FDR's response and under that program billions of dollars of arms were eventually sent to both Britain and the USSR.
A lot of that web site was drivel. Churchill was great manipulator. In 1940 it may have appeared that Germany had access to all the industry of the conquered countries. But we know now that they were a burden to Germany taking resources they could not spare because of the RN blockade. The reverse was the case.
The book was "Five Days in London" by Lukacs. My friend will check the page when she returns home. Meanwhile, you can read the same thing but from a different angle in the third paragraph of this web site article:
How could you ask? Sir Winston kept the Britons' spirits up and fighting when Roosevelt and others were telling them to throw in the towel,
When did Roosevelt even hint around the possibility of Britain's surrender? And who might these others be?
Quote:
He saved the British from going down the tube when all they had to fight with was spirit.
The British in their long glorious history have never needed any one person to rally to the defense of their nation. Either way, your argument is besides the point which is... in the context of the "Big Three" Churchill was the minor player by far. Now if someone would like to address Churchill within the relationship between the three and demonstrate Churchill's standing within that relationship, I'm all eyes.
Quote:
And, if you are in America, just imagine that the strafing London took during the Blitz may have kept the Germans to busy to turn their attention onto New York City or Washington or Toronto.
Seriously?
Quote:
Sir Winston Churchill was of equal value to Roosevelt and Stalin, both of whom had ulterior motives behind their efforts to discourage Churchill.
Ulterior motives? Well Roosevelt clearly had no interest in propping up British colonialism and Stalin certainly had no interest in ever being invaded by either Germany or the west ever again. Both motives were fairly obvious at the time. As for discouraging Churchill, it is hard to argue that they were unsuccessful in their efforts despite Churchill's objections... WHICH IS THE POINT!
WW2 marked the beginning of the end of the British Empire.
Churchill adamantly opposed Indian independence. Roosevelt could not see a single reason to oppose it writing derisively:
Kindly give the following message immediately to the Former Naval Person (implying Churchill): every effort must be made by us to prevent a break-down.
(Quote) I hope most earnestly that you may be able to postpone the departure from India of Cripps until one more effort has finally been made to prevent break-down of the negotiations.
I regret to say that I am unable to agree with the point of view contained in your message to me, that public opinion in the United States believes that negotiations have broken down on general broad issues. Here the general impression is quite the contrary. The feeling is held almost universally that the deadlock had been due to the British Government's unwillingness to concede the right of self-government to the Indians notwithstanding the willingness of the Indians to entrust to the competent British authorities technical military and naval defence control. It is impossible for American public opinion to understand why if there is willingness on the part of the British Government to permit the component parts of India to secede after the war from the British Empire, it is unwilling to permit them to enjoy during the war what is tantamount to self-government.
Churchill opposed the invasion of Normandy. British military historian Max Hasting writes:
For his part, Churchill continued to duck and weave, sustaining the fiction that an Overlord operation in the spring of 1944 was an option rather than an absolute commitment. He pressed for the thrust up through Italy to remain as the Allies' immediate priority
They should seize the moment in the Mediterranean, he argued to Roosevelt, rather than stake everything on a highly dangerous and speculative cross-Channel attack.
But Churchill was wrong about this. Italy was a difficult battlefield, easy to defend, difficult to advance in. If efforts had been concentrated there, D-Day would have been delayed until 1945.
It was American resolution alone that ensured the operational timetable for D-Day was maintained, while the Prime Minister expended political capital in a struggle with Washington that he was not only bound to lose, but which he deserved to lose.
Roosevelt contacts the Canadian prime minister, and wants him to come to Washington to discuss some things that cannot be stated aloud.
"Roosevelt's idea (and request) was that Canada and the Dominion should press Churchill to send the British fleet across the Atlantic, the sooner the better--that is before Hitler's peace terms could include the surrender of the fleet. Roosevelt added that Churchill should not be told of the American origin of that proposal. Thus Roosevelt himself had come to realize that Britain might have to sue for peace--that is, surrender. Also he did not quite--yet--trust Churchill."
John-UK, I have a masters in history. I stand by the statements i've made
in this thread, and don't feel the need to get verbose about it. I'm sure I
wouldn't be the only BA, MA, or PhD to say the UK wouldn't have won the
war without American involvement. Rather, I would be willing to wager
a strong majority would concur likewise. Sorry if it rattles your cage.
While it may be a subtle difference to you, I think that there is a huge difference between as you put it:
"Sir Winston kept the Britons' spirits up and fighting when Roosevelt and others were telling them to throw in the towel,"
And,
Roosevelt suggesting/urging Churchill send the Royal Navy to Canada where it would at least remain under Commonwealth command in the event that Britain proved incapable of defending itself against the Germans. After all it was Churchill who suggested to Roosevelt that without the immediate intervention of the U.S. Britain might fall to the Germans leaving the U.S. to face Germany alone.
“Hugh Keenleyside, of [Canada's] Department of External Affairs, was sent. He reported back on May 26. King recorded in his diary his abhorrence at the position put forward by the Americans. They had decided that the French would not be able to hold out, and that Britain would not be able to bear up against the stronger German air force. Their information was that Hitler might make an offer of settlement, which would be based on Britain turning over of the whole of its empire and fleet to the Germans. The Germany navy, combined with the British navy and the French fleet, would then be much superior to the US navy.
“The Americans requested that King line up the [British] Dominions [in 1940 they were Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Newfoundland and South Africa] to bring concerted pressure to bear on Britain to not make a soft peace with Germany, even though it might mean destruction of the country.
“The American proposal, which they wished King to claim as coming from Canada, and not the United States, was that if it seemed likely that Britain was going to be defeated, then its fleet should retreat, so that it could still operate from a base away from Britain, and King George should go to Bermuda.
“The United States would open her ports to repairs for the British fleet, and in this way, a cordon, from Greenland to Africa, could be thrown around Germany. Though it might take a couple of years, Germany would be defeated in the end.”
Churchill adamantly opposed Indian independence. Roosevelt could not see a single reason to oppose it writing derisively:
India has close links with the UK and uses 100% the system the British left behind. Independence costed many 1000s of lives. At the time it was viewed India would tear down the system. Luckily it never.
Quote:
Churchill opposed the invasion of Normandy.
As allied armies were already in Italy it made sense to consolidate in Italy and take it over quickly. From Italy allied troops could fan out into southern France and the east and work their way around the Alps up through Austria. Air bases set up and a hop over Alps into Germany. That was the logic, which was sound. Churchill saw no need to expend 1000s of men on beach landings in NW France which was heavily fortified - Atlantic Wall.
Quote:
Again the thread isn't about the British, it isn't about stiff upper lip, it is about Churchill's actual status in the eyes of Roosevelt, and Stalin.
Status? His status was clear. You are confused.
His power? His influence?
While it may be a subtle difference to you, I think that there is a huge difference between as you put it:
"Sir Winston kept the Britons' spirits up and fighting when Roosevelt and others were telling them to throw in the towel,"
And,
Roosevelt suggesting/urging Churchill send the Royal Navy to Canada where it would at least remain under Commonwealth command in the event that Britain proved incapable of defending itself against the Germans. After all it was Churchill who suggested to Roosevelt that without the immediate intervention of the U.S. Britain might fall to the Germans leaving the U.S. to face Germany alone.
“Hugh Keenleyside, of [Canada's] Department of External Affairs, was sent. He reported back on May 26. King recorded in his diary his abhorrence at the position put forward by the Americans. They had decided that the French would not be able to hold out, and that Britain would not be able to bear up against the stronger German air force. Their information was that Hitler might make an offer of settlement, which would be based on Britain turning over of the whole of its empire and fleet to the Germans. The Germany navy, combined with the British navy and the French fleet, would then be much superior to the US navy.
“The Americans requested that King line up the [British] Dominions [in 1940 they were Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Newfoundland and South Africa] to bring concerted pressure to bear on Britain to not make a soft peace with Germany, even though it might mean destruction of the country.
“The American proposal, which they wished King to claim as coming from Canada, and not the United States, was that if it seemed likely that Britain was going to be defeated, then its fleet should retreat, so that it could still operate from a base away from Britain, and King George should go to Bermuda.
“The United States would open her ports to repairs for the British fleet, and in this way, a cordon, from Greenland to Africa, could be thrown around Germany. Though it might take a couple of years, Germany would be defeated in the end.”
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."
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."
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.
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.
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.
