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 05-07-2014, 02:43 PM
 
31,387 posts, read 36,906,291 times
Reputation: 15038

Advertisements

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)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-07-2014, 05:03 PM
 
3,695 posts, read 4,961,917 times
Reputation: 2069
Honestly he did the best he could and kept Britain in the war when it was easiest to give up. Those where things that were beyond his control. France fell, The Germans and Soviets invaded Poland and the Empire fell apart post WWII. Colonialism pretty much was dying all around after WWII.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2014, 05:08 PM
 
Location: On the Great South Bay
9,099 posts, read 13,117,494 times
Reputation: 10053
Default Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this island or lose the war

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 am rereading an old book I have, Inferno The World at War 1939-1945 by Max Hastings. And the author makes a good point about the difference between Chamberlain and Churchill.

He is talking at about the fall of Chamberlain after the miserable British performance during the Norwegian campaign (page 52): The campaign's most important consequence was that it precipitated the fall of Chamberlain. Had there been no Norway, it is overwhelmingly likely that he would have retained office as Prime Minister through the campaign in France that followed. The consequences of such an outcome for Britain and for the world, would have been catastrophic, because his government might well have chosen a negotiated peace with Hitler.

Fortunately he did resign and Britain got Churchill who could inspire the Brits to their finest hour. It was Churchill who before almost all his peers, understood that Hitler must be opposed. Not the Americans who thought Hitler was not their problem or not Stalin who thought he could buy Hitler off.

And it was Churchill who said "Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this island or lose the war". Because Churchill understood that Britain needed to follow the same strategy to defeat Hitler that she used to defeat Napoleon. Not to surrender or give in to the enemy but to outlast the enemy until a allied coalition came along that could finally defeat him.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2014, 06:15 PM
 
Location: Miami, FL
8,087 posts, read 9,776,680 times
Reputation: 6650
I read Churchill's History of the Second World War many years ago but still recall the distinct shift regarding his input in operations in the later volumes. About from mid-1943 onwards which coincides with the growing U.S. involvement overshadowing British Commonwealth contributions in the MTO,ETO.

The first few volumes are wonderful to read as Churchill is the main influence with input in every major decision but not the later volumes.

Last edited by Felix C; 05-07-2014 at 06:27 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2014, 06:20 PM
 
31,387 posts, read 36,906,291 times
Reputation: 15038
Quote:
Originally Posted by LINative View Post
I am rereading an old book I have, Inferno The World at War 1939-1945 by Max Hastings.
I do love Max Hastings... sorry.

Quote:
The consequences of such an outcome for Britain and for the world, would have been catastrophic, because his government might well have chosen a negotiated peace with Hitler.
But that presupposes that the Conservative Party would have prevailed and not been succeeded by Attlee as head of the Labor Party and considering the mood of the British public to not only the "Betrayers of Munich" and the abject failure of the Conservative Party over the course of the Depression the ascension of Labor in 1940 as opposed to 1945 isn't that great of a leap.

Quote:
Fortunately he did resign and Britain got Churchill who could inspire the Brits to their finest hour. It was Churchill who before almost all his peers, understood that Hitler must be opposed. Not the Americans who thought Hitler was not their problem or not Stalin who thought he could buy Hitler off.
Well I can't buy into that, Stalin was under no illusions about a eventual confrontation with Hitler although he did believe that he could buy him off for a period of time. As for Roosevelt I strenuously disagree that he was unaware of Hitler's threat just very much aware of the political climate in the U.S.

Quote:
And it was Churchill who said "Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this island or lose the war". Because Churchill understood that Britain needed to follow the same strategy to defeat Hitler that she used to defeat Napoleon. Not to surrender or give in to the enemy but to outlast the enemy until a allied coalition came along that could finally defeat him.
Yes Churchill was a great cheerleader, but from a strategic point of view, which is the primary thrust of this thread, he was a minor player and played more of the role of the petulant little brother getting in the way of Roosevelt and Stalin. (ooh that was harsh).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2014, 07:35 PM
 
Location: London
4,717 posts, read 5,024,090 times
Reputation: 2154
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.
Firstly, the US military was not essential to win WW2. They shortened the war. Without the UK WW2 could not have been won. The British empire was massive with a massive economy.

The US and USSR had no need to concern themselves over the British Empire.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2014, 08:02 PM
 
Location: London
4,717 posts, read 5,024,090 times
Reputation: 2154
Quote:
Originally Posted by LINative View Post
I am rereading an old book I have, Inferno The World at War 1939-1945 by Max Hastings. And the author makes a good point about the difference between Chamberlain and Churchill.

He is talking at about the fall of Chamberlain after the miserable British performance during the Norwegian campaign (page 52): The campaign's most important consequence was that it precipitated the fall of Chamberlain. Had there been no Norway, it is overwhelmingly likely that he would have retained office as Prime Minister through the campaign in France that followed. The consequences of such an outcome for Britain and for the world, would have been catastrophic, because his government might well have chosen a negotiated peace with Hitler.

Fortunately he did resign and Britain got Churchill who could inspire the Brits to their finest hour. It was Churchill who before almost all his peers, understood that Hitler must be opposed. Not the Americans who thought Hitler was not their problem or not Stalin who thought he could buy Hitler off.

And it was Churchill who said "Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this island or lose the war". Because Churchill understood that Britain needed to follow the same strategy to defeat Hitler that she used to defeat Napoleon. Not to surrender or give in to the enemy but to outlast the enemy until a allied coalition came along that could finally defeat him.
Adam Tooze in Wages of Destruction thinks differently. He states that Germany in 1939 was in no position to take on any major power as their economy and military were not up to it. The British Empire alone would have defeated Germany. Germany in the late 1930s was a dire agricultural nation like Ireland and Romania, with 56% engaged in agriculture. Germany was no well oiled industrial powerhouse, just a mid-sized workshop economy. The Soviet pact gave them breathing space. Pre the pact they were in no fit state to take on a large power. Hitler took gambles that worked out. They could have failed and Germany would have been divided up.

Max Hastings speculates, that Chamberlain's "government might well have chosen a negotiated peace with Hitler". Only speculation. The Norwegian campaign was an Anglo-French operation, but the German surface fleet was near wiped out, so a big gain there.

Pre-WW2 Churchill would shout in the Commons that Hitler was rearming and that he was the danger. The US said Hitler was dragging Germany up by its bootstraps.

In early 1941 the UK had defeated the Luftwaffe, wiped out most of the German surface fleet, Wiped out a large section of the French fleet, wiped out large 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. The British were highly instrumental in WW2, in fact key.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2014, 08:08 PM
 
Location: Native Floridian, USA
5,297 posts, read 7,579,732 times
Reputation: 7478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Felix C View Post
I read Churchill's History of the Second World War many years ago but still recall the distinct shift regarding his input in operations in the later volumes. About from mid-1943 onwards which coincides with the growing U.S. involvement overshadowing British Commonwealth contributions in the MTO,ETO.

The first few volumes are wonderful to read as Churchill is the main influence with input in every major decision but not the later volumes.
I have not read all but, in critiques of the History, that is what I have understood. I went off reading just now and became engrossed in what Yalta scholars had to say......LOL

I love history.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2014, 08:13 PM
 
Location: On the Great South Bay
9,099 posts, read 13,117,494 times
Reputation: 10053
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
I do love Max Hastings... sorry.



But that presupposes that the Conservative Party would have prevailed and not been succeeded by Attlee as head of the Labor Party and considering the mood of the British public to not only the "Betrayers of Munich" and the abject failure of the Conservative Party over the course of the Depression the ascension of Labor in 1940 as opposed to 1945 isn't that great of a leap.

Well I can't buy into that, Stalin was under no illusions about a eventual confrontation with Hitler although he did believe that he could buy him off for a period of time. As for Roosevelt I strenuously disagree that he was unaware of Hitler's threat just very much aware of the political climate in the U.S.
Your assuming that Labor would not have made peace with Hitler, I think it very likely. Who knows? But that's the author point, we know Churchill still stood up to Hitler after the fall of France. But we do not know what a different British leader, regardless of party would have done. It would have been awfully tempting to negotiate a armistice with Hitler. Especially since Poland, the whole reason for getting into the war, was seemingly lost and divided by Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.

Hah! You will note I did not say Roosevelt, I said AMERICANS did not consider Hitler their problem (I am well aware of Roosevelt's opinion).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2014, 08:19 PM
 
3,910 posts, read 9,425,349 times
Reputation: 1954
Quote:
Originally Posted by John-UK View Post
Adam Tooze in Wages of Destruction thinks differently. He states that Germany in 1939 was in no position to take on any major power as their economy and military were not up to it. The British Empire alone would have defeated Germany. Germany in the late 1930s was a dire agricultural nation like Ireland and Romania, with 56% engaged in agriculture. Germany was no well oiled industrial powerhouse, just a mid-sized workshop economy. The Soviet pact gave them breathing space. Pre the pact they were in no fit state to take on a large power. Hitler took gambles that worked out. They could have failed and Germany would have been divided up.

Max Hastings speculates, that Chamberlain's "government might well have chosen a negotiated peace with Hitler". Only speculation. The Norwegian campaign was an Anglo-French operation, but the German surface fleet was near wiped out, so a big gain there.

Pre-WW2 Churchill would shout in the Commons that Hitler was rearming and that he was the danger. The US said Hitler was dragging Germany up by its bootstraps.

In early 1941 the UK had defeated the Luftwaffe, wiped out most of the German surface fleet, Wiped out a large section of the French fleet, wiped out large 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. The British were highly instrumental in WW2, in fact key.
How could anyone possibly disagree with any of this?
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