PDA

View Full Version : Churchill versus the rest - Best or worst WWII leader?



Rising Sun*
05-27-2014, 11:16 AM
I've often been critical of individual decisions by Churchill (notably failures in Greece and then Malaya where he repeated the mistake of committing scarce ground and naval forces without adequate, and in comparison with the enemy no, air cover), but when one considers the many competing demands he had on his resources he turned out brilliantly as the leader of the only nation fighting the vastly superior Italian and German forces for a year and a half after France surrendered and before America and the USSR came in, without which there could and would not have been an Allied victory.

I am inclined to think that Churchill's greatest fault was rampant aggression which produced a desire to try all sorts of hopeless operations against Germany from Norway to Greece, but it was also his, and Britain's, greatest strength as the Germans and Italians thought they had cornered Britain at various times in various places but Churchill's aggressive spirit kept the fight going. I doubt any other British, or later Allied, leader would have done the same, and certainly not the British lot he replaced at a critical early time in the war.

At a strategic level, Churchill's greatest fault was a belligerent desire to fight his enemies and a consequent willingness to ignore the basic military principle of concentrating forces at the enemy's weakest point in preference for fighting the enemy wherever the opportunity arose, which was spectacularly illustrated by his decision for political purposes to take critical forces out of North Africa to a doomed campaign in Greece, which lost Greece and British forces as a minor repeat of the previous loss in France. It could also have lost North Africa, which then would have pretty much lost the strategically important parts of the Mediterranean and potentially the Iraq oilfields and various other not critical to Britain's war but, if captured, useful to Germany's ability to fight the war.

However, compare the early years of the war with Hitler and Mussolini who were both in the ascendant, and Stalin who was carving up Europe to his own advantage in collaboration with Hitler.

Churchill's aggressive, tenacious character puts Mussolini's posturing emptiness in the shade; overwhelms Hitler's hubris in time and, as a Prime Minister who routinely carried a Bren gun in his car in case of German invasion, demonstrates a character who would fight to his own death rather than, like Hitler, commit suicide to escape capture; and condemns Stalin's self-preservation.

As for Tojo & Co, certainly aggressive and tenacious, and stunningly brutal and inhumane, but not very bright in the long term tactical or strategical aspects which essentially were: Let's grab this and see if we can hold it after attacking the only major power which can crush us after, to our considerable surprise despite warnings from better informed elements within our own camp, we've outraged it beyond belief by a sneak attack on Pearl Harbor.

Roosevelt is in his own category, as the calm and determined leader of the only nation which has the industrial, never mind the military, power to change the balance against all Axis powers.

JR*
05-27-2014, 12:22 PM
A very interesting point raised here. I would say that it is impossible to know how Churchill would have behaved if the panzers were advancing up Whitehall. One of those "what ifs". I will have to think about this. Best regards, JR.

witman111
07-27-2014, 04:41 PM
For one, I actually have read Churchill memoirs - all 6 tomes, cca. 3000 pages. Few things strike me:
1. He had discussion with Ribentrop back in 1937 where Ribentrop visited England and foretold Germany's expansion policy and tried to get Churchill's approval because tiny England wil be defeated. Churchill replied something like "England will hang all world down Germany's neck". He was right.
2. Churchill visited Germany in the days young Hitler rose to power and was holding a speech in Munich. At the time Hitler knew Churchill was there and was trying to meet him. All was arranged but went down the drain when Churchill asked German envoy - why Jews are being brutalized. Funny thing all Churchill care before meeting Hitler was something like Jewish minority.
3. What is specially striking is that in winter 1941, around time of Moscow conference, he discussed future of Prussia with Stalin. England down, Russia falling and they talk about future of Prussia in each of their letters. Interesting.
4. Partition of Germany. He did not object Curzon line being abolished, and Poland enlarged at Germany's expense. He didn't mind much ethnic cleansing of Germany's eastern provinces by Soviets.
5. He however was first to realize dangers of Communism and threatened conflict with Tito if necessary.
6. There was also interesting intervention in Persia where he clearly says unwanted government was toppled, in order to secure Anglo-Russian railway, on accounts of some human rights issues. Funny he admits it publicly.

I dislike his view that Hitler and Stalin were tugs and lawbreakers. England and France carved the world up to their own liking, advantage and brutal exploitation. Others didn't have that benefit and had to do best they could at a time.

Hitler and Churchill didn't have same starting positions. Hitler's Germany was in ruins in every sense while England commandeered wealthy Commonwealth empire. Of course Hitler could resurrect Germany without war but that wasn't enough for him. Churchill was aristocracy and had his existence ensured 10 times over being a Mason and all. Hitler didn't have any money. Both were painters.

Hitler had best eye for new technology's and strategies. He read Rommel's book and promoted him realizing the future of tank warfare. He also had faults from fixation with Jews to ideas of "Festung" fortress when in retreat, not to mention fate of 6th Army. Germany, under Nazi regime held out more than any numbers would suggest.

Stalin was paranoid killing his own by millions but Soviet regime proved much, much tougher than Tsar's Russia for example. His position was not so bad as russia is enormous, unlike England or Germany, and he wielded absolute power - unlike Churchill. His only concern was that Russian people held out. And they did - praise to them.

pdf27
07-28-2014, 02:07 AM
2. Churchill visited Germany in the days young Hitler rose to power and was holding a speech in Munich. At the time Hitler knew Churchill was there and was trying to meet him. All was arranged but went down the drain when Churchill asked German envoy - why Jews are being brutalized. Funny thing all Churchill care before meeting Hitler was something like Jewish minority.
Dates? If it was all that early, that shows Churchill as rather prescient (possibly a little too much so - after all this is the man who said "I know history will be kind to me, for I intend to write it").


3. What is specially striking is that in winter 1941, around time of Moscow conference, he discussed future of Prussia with Stalin. England down, Russia falling and they talk about future of Prussia in each of their letters. Interesting.
Hardly surprising - both leaders were hardly lacking in self-confidence, and Churchill at least was a product of a time when Prussia rather than Germany was identified as the aggressive problem in Germany.


6. There was also interesting intervention in Persia where he clearly says unwanted government was toppled, in order to secure Anglo-Russian railway, on accounts of some human rights issues. Funny he admits it publicly.
First I've heard of it. The usual explanation is even more brutal - they didn't support us, and Iran was home to one of the largest oil refineries in the world (Abadan), which supplied a huge fraction of Soviet high octane aviation fuel.


Hitler had best eye for new technology's and strategies. He read Rommel's book and promoted him realizing the future of tank warfare.
Would this be the Erwin Rommel who wrote "Infantry Attacks", or some other Rommel? The influential book on tank warfare was Achtung Panzer, by Heinz Guderian, and even then the book was written after the Reichswehr had placed him in charge of developing the German armoured forces - not the other way around, and Hitler's only involvement was to sack him in December 1941.
Rommel, incidentally, got his first division (France, 1940) as a reward for being in charge of Hitler's bodyguard.


Germany, under Nazi regime held out more than any numbers would suggest.
And the fruits of them holding out were another million or two "undesirables" murdered, their cities burned to the ground and their civilian population killed in huge numbers. Forgive me if I don't consider this a good thing.

leccy
07-28-2014, 05:20 AM
Quick few notes




5. He however was first to realize dangers of Communism and threatened conflict with Tito if necessary.

Fought against the Greek Communists in 1944, supported Tito post war against the Soviets, dealt with Tito during the war

I dislike his view that Hitler and Stalin were tugs and lawbreakers. England and France carved the world up to their own liking, advantage and brutal exploitation. Others didn't have that benefit and had to do best they could at a time.

Current morals brought to bear on past history, all nations built up Empires at some time in the past (btw its Britain not just England), Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini etc were considered thugs due to their actions at the time and not the hundreds of years of previous history (after all the Italian, Greek, Persian to name but a few had more brutal empire building in their heydays)

Hitler and Churchill didn't have same starting positions. Hitler's Germany was in ruins in every sense while England commandeered wealthy Commonwealth empire. Of course Hitler could resurrect Germany without war but that wasn't enough for him. Churchill was aristocracy and had his existence ensured 10 times over being a Mason and all. Hitler didn't have any money. Both were painters.

Churchill was broke several times in his life, he was cast adrift into the political no-mans land several times. He had to go back to dinner speeches and journalism to survive.

Hitler was a failed painter for a living, Churchill painted as a relaxing pastime - he was a soldier, journalist and then politician in that order

Hitler had best eye for new technology's and strategies. He read Rommel's book and promoted him realizing the future of tank warfare. He also had faults from fixation with Jews to ideas of "Festung" fortress when in retreat, not to mention fate of 6th Army. Germany, under Nazi regime held out more than any numbers would suggest.

Hitler had such an eye for technology that he stopped development of promising designs, kept changing requirements for designs so they took too long to get into the field, banned certain items from being made (MP43/STG44 saga as an example), an eye for new strategies yet failed to comprehend the complexities of a sea borne invasion and constantly changed his strategic direction instead of focussing.

Churchill and Stalin could be said to have an eye for new technology and strategies - not always good but they both pushed them

burp
08-02-2014, 05:26 AM
I think that Churchill is better suited than other leaders for wartime. As Whitman11 pointed out, he was from the beginning a soldier, an aspect that other European leaders have only partially or not at all.
Mussolini and Hitler proved to be inadequate when they must acted on defensive stance. To be honest, Mussolini in foreign politics proved to be not good at all. Stalin, for me, had a "fanatic" way of thought, that while it worked for some aspects, it also leads to several problems of RUSSIA in wartime.
Churchill, while as human made some mistakes, had never lose faith and focus on the war, he kept himself cool while at some point Germany and Italy seem to win the war in Europe.

Rising Sun*
08-02-2014, 08:43 AM
I would say that it is impossible to know how Churchill would have behaved if the panzers were advancing up Whitehall. One of those "what ifs".

Given Churchill's life long demonstration of his aggressive and brave character, I have no doubt that, unlike Hitler committing suicide when faced with defeat and Stalin carefully concealing himself from and ruthlessly eliminating potential threats before, during and after WWII and Mussolini being largely a strutting, pompous waste of space who faced defeat by trying to escape in disguise, Churchill would have attacked the tanks with anything at hand, and if nothing else was at hand then with his fists, and probably making a memorable comment as he did it.

It is indicative of Churchill's belligerent character that his response to his loss of office in some disgrace as First Lord of the Admiralty after the Gallipoli failure was to retain his parliamentary position but also activate his Army commission and go to the front in France, which is in marked contrast to the usual politicians' "I want to spend more time with my family" which is code for "I'm slinking off to sulk for the rest of my life.".

Churchill's greatest strategic and tactical faults and failures (excluding Malaya, which was lack of understanding and imperial arrogance and negligence) usually originated from a desire to fight the Axis powers, anywhere and everywhere. If the worst anyone can say of a wartime leader is that he was too belligerent and this caused his nation to keep fighting when common sense said it was beaten, and ultimately it won against all odds, that is a magnificent compliment to Churchill and Britain.

witman111
08-14-2014, 03:35 AM
First I've heard of it. The usual explanation is even more brutal - they didn't support us, and Iran was home to one of the largest oil refineries in the world (Abadan), which supplied a huge fraction of Soviet high octane aviation fuel.

Would this be the Erwin Rommel who wrote "Infantry Attacks", or some other Rommel? The influential book on tank warfare was Achtung Panzer, by Heinz Guderian, and even then the book was written after the Reichswehr had placed him in charge of developing the German armoured forces - not the other way around, and Hitler's only involvement was to sack him in December 1941.
Rommel, incidentally, got his first division (France, 1940) as a reward for being in charge of Hitler's bodyguard.


1. It's in book 2 I believe - look it up. Persian railway capacity to USSR was increased 10 fold by British and then Americans.
2. Germany pineered panzer warfare and defeated France with much less relative power or wealth than it had in 1914.
3. Btw. that would be Rommerl who as a member of Alpine Corps in WW1 went ahead with his batallion after breakthrough of Italy's front and captured Italians by bucketload in the rear. Sounds familiar ? 1 Italian regiment surendered only to him and his adjutant. Read WW1 by Kagean - fantastic book.



And the fruits of them holding out were another million or two "undesirables" murdered, their cities burned to the ground and their civilian population killed in huge numbers. Forgive me if I don't consider this a good thing.

That's not the issue here. The issue was weather these leaders established regimes that were enduring and resiliant. British regime was not tested to the limit as it only fought successfull air campaign in 1940. Hitlers and Stalines regime had undergone 10 fold stress levels and still functioned.


Given Churchill's life long demonstration of his aggressive and brave character, I have no doubt that, unlike Hitler committing suicide when faced with defeat and Stalin carefully concealing himself from and ruthlessly eliminating potential threats before, during and after WWII and Mussolini being largely a strutting, pompous waste of space who faced defeat by trying to escape in disguise, Churchill would have attacked the tanks with anything at hand, and if nothing else was at hand then with his fists, and probably making a memorable comment as he did it.

Churchill's greatest strategic and tactical faults and failures (excluding Malaya, which was lack of understanding and imperial arrogance and negligence) usually originated from a desire to fight the Axis powers, anywhere and everywhere. If the worst anyone can say of a wartime leader is that he was too belligerent and this caused his nation to keep fighting when common sense said it was beaten, and ultimately it won against all odds, that is a magnificent compliment to Churchill and Britain.

Churchill had little faith in panzers, he was dreaming up experimentry giant tractors to dig trenches up to German lines and was very proud of it. When France was attacked and power of panzers realized, 6 of this giant digging tractors were melted away. I doubt any leader would wait for enemy tanks and not flee.


Churchill was broke several times in his life, he was cast adrift into the political no-mans land several times. He had to go back to dinner speeches and journalism to survive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill
"Churchill was born into the aristocratic family of the Dukes of Marlborough, a branch of the Spencer family. His father, Lord Randolph Churchill, was a charismatic politician who served as Chancellor of the Exchequer; his mother, Jennie Jerome, was an American socialite. As a young army officer, he saw action in British India, the Sudan, and the Second Boer War. He gained fame as a war correspondent and wrote books about his campaigns.
At the forefront of politics for fifty years, he held many political and cabinet positions. Before the First World War, he served as President of the Board of Trade, Home Secretary, and First Lord of the Admiralty as part of the Asquith Liberal government. During the war, he continued as First Lord of the Admiralty until the disastrous Gallipoli Campaign caused his departure from government. He then briefly resumed active army service on the Western Front as commander of the 6th Battalion of the Royal Scots Fusiliers. He returned to government as Minister of Munitions, Secretary of State for War, and Secretary of State for Air. In 1921-1922 Churchill served as Secretary of State for the Colonies, then Chancellor of the Exchequer..."

With his fathers postition and his own positions and things not mentioned in white washed wikipedia I REALLY DOUBT Churchill was ever a poor man.

pdf27
08-15-2014, 02:08 PM
1. It's in book 2 I believe - look it up. Persian railway capacity to USSR was increased 10 fold by British and then Americans.
I'm still dubious about that alone being sufficient. Abadan eventually produced 1,000,000 tonnes of Iso-Octane (100 octane aviation fuel) per annum - that's almost exactly the same as the entire German production of aviation fuel in 1944 (it had peaked at 2,000,000 tonnes per year in 1943).


2. Germany pineered panzer warfare and defeated France with much less relative power or wealth than it had in 1914.
3. Btw. that would be Rommerl who as a member of Alpine Corps in WW1 went ahead with his batallion after breakthrough of Italy's front and captured Italians by bucketload in the rear. Sounds familiar ? 1 Italian regiment surendered only to him and his adjutant. Read WW1 by Kagean - fantastic book.
I'd suggest some other books rather than just Keegan (which I have) - Rommel was a gifted self-publicist who owed his position as a divisional commander to Hitler's personal favor in 1940 - he had f***-all to do with coming up with the plan for Fall Gelb.


That's not the issue here. The issue was weather these leaders established regimes that were enduring and resiliant. British regime was not tested to the limit as it only fought successfull air campaign in 1940. Hitlers and Stalines regime had undergone 10 fold stress levels and still functioned.
Really? So losing half your army, your major ally, and fighting a bunch of failed battles isn't stressful, and so marks them out as failures? On that basis Hitler was a miserable failure - throughout 1944 and 1945 he only had a single successful battle, let alone campaign.
As for enduring, well Hitler lasted in power until 1945, Stalin until 1953, Churchill was either in office or the leader of the opposition until 1955 (PM 1951-55). Sounds pretty enduring and resilient to me.


Churchill had little faith in panzers, he was dreaming up experimentry giant tractors to dig trenches up to German lines and was very proud of it. When France was attacked and power of panzers realized, 6 of this giant digging tractors were melted away. I doubt any leader would wait for enemy tanks and not flee.
This would be the same Churchill who paid for the first tank in the world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Willie) and established the committee which invented it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landships_Committee)? Churchill was a dreamer who encouraged wacky weapons systems. Sometimes they worked (tanks), sometimes they didn't (anti-aircraft rockets). He got the very big calls right though - oil firing for RN Dreadnoughts in WW1 and the development of tanks, the atomic bomb in WW2 (he was the first world leader to commit to it, some time before Roosevelt did).
You've also got some funny ideas about the British Army - they entered WW2 with the only wholly-mechanised force on earth (several British PoWs in 1940 recall spotting the Germans using horses with British War Office marks on them - the British had sold them to the Germans when they went fully-mechanised). They also had the most tank-heavy army of WW2 - by 1944, a British armoured division had twice the number of tanks that a Panzer division had (more tanks indeed than American armoured division!), but the same number of men. Hardly the fruit of a leader who didn't believe in tanks!

leccy
08-16-2014, 02:14 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill
"Churchill was born into the aristocratic family of the Dukes of Marlborough, a branch of the Spencer family. His father, Lord Randolph Churchill, was a charismatic politician who served as Chancellor of the Exchequer; his mother, Jennie Jerome, was an American socialite. As a young army officer, he saw action in British India, the Sudan, and the Second Boer War. He gained fame as a war correspondent and wrote books about his campaigns.
At the forefront of politics for fifty years, he held many political and cabinet positions. Before the First World War, he served as President of the Board of Trade, Home Secretary, and First Lord of the Admiralty as part of the Asquith Liberal government. During the war, he continued as First Lord of the Admiralty until the disastrous Gallipoli Campaign caused his departure from government. He then briefly resumed active army service on the Western Front as commander of the 6th Battalion of the Royal Scots Fusiliers. He returned to government as Minister of Munitions, Secretary of State for War, and Secretary of State for Air. In 1921-1922 Churchill served as Secretary of State for the Colonies, then Chancellor of the Exchequer..."

With his fathers postition and his own positions and things not mentioned in white washed wikipedia I REALLY DOUBT Churchill was ever a poor man.


Churchill often was broke he just had friends who were not who would help him out in respect of what he did. He still had to go back to working in between his terms in office to support himself - he did not rely on old money to see him through. He worked and was successful enough to manage.

As I said in response to you - he was broke at times, just he had friends who could help as well as abilities outside of politics to earn money.

He could have secured himself a more prominent position as well if he had accepted the Dukedom he was offered in 1955 but refused.


Churchill was broke several times in his life, he was cast adrift into the political no-mans land several times. He had to go back to dinner speeches and journalism to survive ((Edited to add)) as well as continuing to write his books.

Hitler was a failed painter for a living, Churchill painted as a relaxing pastime - he was a soldier, journalist and then politician in that order

In 1938, Churchill was pressed to offer Chartwell for sale for financial reasons, at which time the house was advertised as containing 5 reception rooms, 19 bed and dressing rooms, 8 bathrooms, set in 80 acres with three cottages on the estate and a heated and floodlit swimming pool. He withdrew after industrialist Sir Henry Strakosch agreed to take over his share portfolio (which had suffered heavily from losses on Wall Street) for three years and pay off heavy debts

When it became clear to the Churchills in 1946 that they could not afford to run the property, a consortium of wealthy businessmen organised by Lord Camrose purchased the estate. The arrangement was that for payment of nominal rent both Sir Winston and Lady Churchill would have the right to live there until they both died, at which point the property would be presented to the National Trust.[1] When Sir Winston died in 1965, Clementine decided to present Chartwell to the National Trust immediately

Frankly Dude Really
03-06-2015, 06:43 AM
A very interesting point raised here. I would say that it is impossible to know how Churchill would have behaved if the panzers were advancing up Whitehall. One of those "what ifs". I will have to think about this. Best regards, JR.

Funny that you say; here is the movie:
http://www.newvideo.com/flatiron-film-company/jackboots-on-whitehall/

Frankly Dude Really
03-06-2015, 07:05 AM
Poster forgot to comment on Stalin.
And why is de Gaulle missing ? and TSjang Kai Check (missspelled of course) ..or Mannerheim (Finnish) ?
Or are we talking here only "big is important, rest is nothing" ?

Wrt tanks and understanding its importance: they ALL understood: Churchill as far back in WW1.
The French, Stalin (building tanks like cookies) even Italy too.
But credit should go to the respective HQs and defense ministers and not the political leader.
On the aspect of good or wrong tank design however.......

For me, to vote on a political warleader with the biggest balls is to know how he'd reacted during adversity/crisis.
And Churchill tops them all:
During Dunkirk, France making Vichy gvnmt, Fall of Singapore, the staggering Convoy losses in 41, all of these occasions, Churchill remained straight, cool...and drank extra whiskey.
Stalin ? Hid away in june 1941 for a week.(I am soooo sure he had an anxiety/paranoia breakdown).
French (Reynaud?) panicked in June 40 without having seen german boots in Paris.
Hitler: Besides the logic suicide in 45 ; months before : apparent nervous breakdowns (and drug abuse is involved).
Mussolini , I don't know about his condition just before he was being ousted first time, but when he was reinstalled, he was a ghost.

FDR: well, he never was in a serious crisis, and he knew it. So difficult to judge. However, his judgements at the Jalta conference (ok, being ill and weak...still , making poor decisions wrt Stalin...), I rate him a few ticks below Churchill. Especiallly his naiviety to think to be able to "handle" all politicians/leaders/dictators in the world.

Spit109
05-09-2015, 04:53 PM
I'm in awe of Churchill's cognitive ability actually since (I've read) that he was a drunkard--he was literally drunk most of the time. I can hold my liquor but I'm not sure I would trust myself to make decisions critical to my country in an inebriated state.

Nickdfresh
05-10-2015, 09:34 PM
I'm in awe of Churchill's cognitive ability actually since (I've read) that he was a drunkard--he was literally drunk most of the time. I can hold my liquor but I'm not sure I would trust myself to make decisions critical to my country in an inebriated state.

Probably not "drunk" but maintaining...

Wittmann
07-03-2015, 12:20 AM
While Churchill had his faults, so did all the others.

Churchill faced invasion, fighting on multiple Continents and Oceans. No other WW2 leader faced what he did. Churchill also sent the USSR thousands of tons of lend lease materials when it seemed less than practical from the UK standpoint.

During the American Civil War a group of people approached President Abraham Lincoln with concerns of the drinking whiskey habits of Commanding General Uylsses S Grant. Lincoln simply replied to find out what out what whiskey he was drinking and send a case to each General under his command. Which I believe Lincoln did.

JR*
07-03-2015, 11:21 AM
Interesting thread. I should say that I have the greatest respect for Churchill. Admittedly, his relentless aggression did lead to a number of serious mistakes. On the other hand, overall, it was a major political asset. His appreciation that US involvement in the war against the Axis, to the maximum possible extent, was essential if eventual victory was to be achieved was important, as was his "courting" FDR in this interest. His main assets, it seems to me, were patriotism and his supreme ability to communicate it; his aggression (with reservations); his unconquerable defiance and (without reservation) his energy. Above all, there is his capacity to mobilise and inspire - not, curiously, something obvious from his earlier career, which often earned him distrust and dislike. A question of maturity, perhaps ?

As to his weaknesses - and apart from the question of where his excesses of aggressiveness led him - he does seem to have been afflicted by a general outlook that was lodged in the era of his pre-WW1 youth; that of the British Empire at his highest point (at least apparently). It seems to have led him to believe that, apart from the basic imperative of British resistance to the Axis (a basic existential matter), there ran alongside an imperative to preserve the British Empire and Commonwealth, as were. This led him into a number of serious errors, the least of which was to misinterpret the grand strategic motives of his much-desired US ally which favoured the dismantling of multi-territorial empires (but not, of course, of America's own "informal" hegemonistic empire). The worst was to assent to a profoundly archaic, Bismarckian arrangement with the Soviet Union involving what turned out (for the most part) meaningless (sometimes ridiculous) allocations of "spheres of interest" in eastern Europe and in the Middle East. (BTW - FDR was at least as guilty of this.). There were other minor consequences - for example, his assent to the general, stupid attitude of key Allied officials to Irish neutrality, in spite of the fact that it was very much "neutral against" the Axis. The Irish Free State was wholly unready to enter the war, and certainly unready for its open entry in favour of Britain, with possible "friendly" British/US occupation of southern Ireland, at this time. The result could have been a chaotic distraction, completely unnecessary and even dangerous to the Allied cause. I have never had much time for our PM of the time, De Valera, but he had the rights over Churchill on this.

As to the brandy and cigars - I do not like the term "alcoholic", because it has long been appropriated by a ... shall we say, point of view that affords it a particular and strange meaning. However, Churchill was, to say the least, a "high functioning" drinker who also managed to be high functioning in relation to the consumption of a particularly rich form of tobacco ingestion (large Romeo y Jiuiletta Cuban cigars). Both of these import large quantities of toxins into the body. However, some people's genes just seem to be capable of taking this and dealing with it without keeling over. Winston was obviously one of these. Well, so it was ... Best regards, JR.

Wittmann
08-08-2015, 10:46 PM
Churchill was the best WW2 leader IMHO, FDR was very good but honestly look at what Churchill had to deal with, he lead the most defiance stance since Sir Isaac Brock in the defense of Canada during the war of 1812.

aly j
08-15-2015, 04:36 AM
I've often been critical of individual decisions by Churchill (notably failures in Greece and then Malaya where he repeated the mistake of committing scarce ground and naval forces without adequate, and in comparison with the enemy no, air cover), but when one considers the many competing demands he had on his resources he turned out brilliantly as the leader of the only nation fighting the vastly superior Italian and German forces for a year and a half after France surrendered and before America and the USSR came in, without which there could and would not have been an Allied victory.

I am inclined to think that Churchill's greatest fault was rampant aggression which produced a desire to try all sorts of hopeless operations against Germany from Norway to Greece, but it was also his, and Britain's, greatest strength as the Germans and Italians thought they had cornered Britain at various times in various places but Churchill's aggressive spirit kept the fight going. I doubt any other British, or later Allied, leader would have done the same, and certainly not the British lot he replaced at a critical early time in the war.

At a strategic level, Churchill's greatest fault was a belligerent desire to fight his enemies and a consequent willingness to ignore the basic military principle of concentrating forces at the enemy's weakest point in preference for fighting the enemy wherever the opportunity arose, which was spectacularly illustrated by his decision for political purposes to take critical forces out of North Africa to a doomed campaign in Greece, which lost Greece and British forces as a minor repeat of the previous loss in France. It could also have lost North Africa, which then would have pretty much lost the strategically important parts of the Mediterranean and potentially the Iraq oilfields and various other not critical to Britain's war but, if captured, useful to Germany's ability to fight the war.

However, compare the early years of the war with Hitler and Mussolini who were both in the ascendant, and Stalin who was carving up Europe to his own advantage in collaboration with Hitler.

Churchill's aggressive, tenacious character puts Mussolini's posturing emptiness in the shade; overwhelms Hitler's hubris in time and, as a Prime Minister who routinely carried a Bren gun in his car in case of German invasion, demonstrates a character who would fight to his own death rather than, like Hitler, commit suicide to escape capture; and condemns Stalin's self-preservation.

As for Tojo & Co, certainly aggressive and tenacious, and stunningly brutal and inhumane, but not very bright in the long term tactical or strategical aspects which essentially were: Let's grab this and see if we can hold it after attacking the only major power which can crush us after, to our considerable surprise despite warnings from better informed elements within our own camp, we've outraged it beyond belief by a sneak attack on Pearl Harbor.

Roosevelt is in his own category, as the calm and determined leader of the only nation which has the industrial, never mind the military, power to change the balance against all Axis powers.
Churchill was a puppet leader that sold his soul, nation and people to one group of people. Churchill never had to worry because he was serving that one group of people whilst Hitler took a risk and went against those group of people (who control all white nations)

Churchill couldn't lead a nation on his own and WWII proved this.

aly j
08-15-2015, 04:42 AM
And the fruits of them holding out were another million or two "undesirables" murdered, their cities burned to the ground and their civilian population killed in huge numbers. Forgive me if I don't consider this a good thing.

You are well aware it took three big "allied nations" to take down one white Nationalists NS country.

Rising Sun*
08-15-2015, 11:15 AM
Churchill was a puppet leader that sold his soul, nation and people to one group of people.

Which group?


Churchill never had to worry because he was serving that one group of people whilst Hitler took a risk and went against those group of people (who control all white nations)

Which groups for Churchill and Hitler?

Specify all the white nations controlled by "those group of people".

Clarify how Germany under Hitler was not part of those white nations controlled by "those group of people".

Or do you mean that Hitler was, like you say Churchill was, a puppet of "those group of people (who control all white nations)".



Churchill couldn't lead a nation on his own and WWII proved this.

Who was actually leading Britain from the time Churchill became Prime Minister?

How did Churchill's supposed leadership of Britain during WWII prove that he couldn't lead his nation?


Your answers will make a highly original contribution to WWII scholarship.

Rising Sun*
08-15-2015, 11:20 AM
You are well aware it took three big "allied nations" to take down one white Nationalists NS country.

I thought that South Africa was part of the Commonwealth forces in WWII and wasn't "taken down", but I look forward to your elucidation on how I got that wrong.

royal744
02-20-2016, 04:08 PM
1. It's in book 2 I believe - look it up. Persian railway capacity to USSR was increased 10 fold by British and then Americans.
2. Germany pineered panzer warfare and defeated France with much less relative power or wealth than it had in 1914.
3. Btw. that would be Rommerl who as a member of Alpine Corps in WW1 went ahead with his batallion after breakthrough of Italy's front and captured Italians by bucketload in the rear. Sounds familiar ? 1 Italian regiment surendered only to him and his adjutant. Read WW1 by Kagean - fantastic book.



That's not the issue here. The issue was weather these leaders established regimes that were enduring and resiliant. British regime was not tested to the limit as it only fought successfull air campaign in 1940. Hitlers and Stalines regime had undergone 10 fold stress levels and still functioned.



Churchill had little faith in panzers, he was dreaming up experimentry giant tractors to dig trenches up to German lines and was very proud of it. When France was attacked and power of panzers realized, 6 of this giant digging tractors were melted away. I doubt any leader would wait for enemy tanks and not flee.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill
"Churchill was born into the aristocratic family of the Dukes of Marlborough, a branch of the Spencer family. His father, Lord Randolph Churchill, was a charismatic politician who served as Chancellor of the Exchequer; his mother, Jennie Jerome, was an American socialite. As a young army officer, he saw action in British India, the Sudan, and the Second Boer War. He gained fame as a war correspondent and wrote books about his campaigns.
At the forefront of politics for fifty years, he held many political and cabinet positions. Before the First World War, he served as President of the Board of Trade, Home Secretary, and First Lord of the Admiralty as part of the Asquith Liberal government. During the war, he continued as First Lord of the Admiralty until the disastrous Gallipoli Campaign caused his departure from government. He then briefly resumed active army service on the Western Front as commander of the 6th Battalion of the Royal Scots Fusiliers. He returned to government as Minister of Munitions, Secretary of State for War, and Secretary of State for Air. In 1921-1922 Churchill served as Secretary of State for the Colonies, then Chancellor of the Exchequer..."

With his fathers postition and his own positions and things not mentioned in white washed wikipedia I REALLY DOUBT Churchill was ever a poor man.

There were times in his life when his finances were quite thin. Being a hard worker, a good speaker and great writer, he squeeked by Thos rough patches. Don't let his father's aristocratic origins fool you.

royal744
02-20-2016, 04:24 PM
Probably not "drunk" but maintaining...

Funny. Churchill was often accused of being a drunard by Goebbels and Hitler. That, and he led a nation of "shopkeepers".
Did the irony of being flogged and beaten by a "shopkeeping drunkard" ever occur to them? And, dare I say it, he drank a great deal but always managed to keep his wits about him. Some people can just hold their liquor better than others.

royal744
02-20-2016, 04:32 PM
You are well aware it took three big "allied nations" to take down one white Nationalists NS country.

Please tell me what toxic rot you are peddling because I don't understand it.

Cojimar 1945
04-05-2016, 04:32 PM
I think Churchill is perhaps a bit overrated, I think one could make a good case that he wasn't even the greatest Churchill. I have been reading about John Churchill and he seems far more impressive from a military standpoint.

Chevan
06-19-2016, 02:11 AM
Funny. Churchill was often accused of being a drunard by Goebbels and Hitler.
That's even more funny;) Coz Hitler at least since 1943 sited on drugs of dr Morell.

Chevan
06-19-2016, 02:46 AM
3. What is specially striking is that in winter 1941, around time of Moscow conference, he discussed future of Prussia with Stalin. England down, Russia falling and they talk about future of Prussia in each of their letters. Interesting.

Nothing amazing endeed. The reason of such an futuristic optimism was a fact of USA entering into the war. Thus the matter of final Germany's defeat was becoming the ONLY matter of time. The two old matured strategists knew the theme.


4. Partition of Germany. He did not object Curzon line being abolished, and Poland enlarged at Germany's expense. He didn't mind much ethnic cleansing of Germany's eastern provinces by Soviets.

The former eastern Reich provinces has been cleansed not but the soviets but by poles and chechs. And why should Church mind much abot post-war cleansind and deportation of ethnic germans , after the he knew the manies fact of germans ethnic genocide against poles and russians? All the territorial changes( and deportations) have been agreed with allies on conferences.


I dislike his view that Hitler and Stalin were tugs and lawbreakers. England and France carved the world up to their own liking, advantage and brutal exploitation. Others didn't have that benefit and had to do best they could at a time.

Yeah and actually Hitler never disputed the will and right of Britain and France to brutally exploit the it's colonial ownerships.( It was Mussoliny who wanter redistrubution;) in Africa) Hitler was just dreaming to share the GErmany over Eastern Lebensraum i.e. at the expence of USSR. And he drives to the East directly.

imi
06-19-2016, 06:37 AM
I think he was one of the worst leader
Declared war Great Britain on Germany September 3, 1939, 11 a.m. along with France in September 3, 1939, 5 p.m. (and along the same day with India, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa)
They Brits could not stand alone with the Germans and a declaration of war only dig their own graves in
Hitler not plan to attack England or France not yet in 1939 and shortly before 1939 made a 25-year contract to peace contest with France, which kicked the French side in September 3 1939

DVX
06-21-2016, 06:11 PM
I don't think as you do, Rising Sun, that the Greece campaign was a mistake. You don't consider that sometimes politics prevail on military. Politically Churchill had the duty to help, in front the world, the "free world" or the victims of the Axis aggression... and this had a military cost. In any case Creta should be defended for strategical reasons.
About Malaya, what had Curchill to do for you? To leave it to the Japanese without fighting?
I think Churchill was a strong leader for his country, with a greatest will to fight the enemy to alla costs. But this is the light "face" of Churchill, that is widely known. Considering his realism, I can not believe he had not studied a Plan B in the event that things has gone badly for Britain.
Probably, this is the dark side of his political activity, unknown to everyone because this could never be revealed to the public... worth his own reputation and Great Britain's one. As world war winner and as literature Nobel Prize "singer of his own deeds", he could make disappear any evidence against him. But some clues remain:

The importance of these documents was that so Mussolini spoke with Pavolini (telephone recording of the March 25, 1945):

Mussolini: "I just spoke now with Zerbino. He is here now with all the acts. Also waiting you ".

Pavolini: "Be right Duce. Duce, but do you have not really any good news? "

Mussolini: "No, just not. I'm always disliking less he behavior of the Germans. I'm seriously worried. The outcome of the war does not deceive me. I do not question about my person, but what worries me is the fate of the entire Italy .... I currently believe that the most important and most useful thing for us is to secure our papers, especially the exchange of letters and the agreements with Churchill. These documents will be the inevitable example of bad faith of the British. These documents are worth for Italy more than a war won, because they will explain to the world the true, I repeat, the real reasons of our intervention at the side of Germany".

Have a read here (translate as you can): http://ilcovo.mastertopforum.net/le-trattative-segrete-dietro-al-finto-suicidio-di-himmler-vt3232.html

Rising Sun*
06-23-2016, 11:19 AM
They Brits could not stand alone with the Germans and a declaration of war only dig their own graves in


But the British Commonwealth fought alone against Germany until mid-1941 when the USSR became involved in theatres which had nothing to do with the British Commonwealth theatres. Also, Britain provided support to the USSR while the USSR never provided support of any significance to any force outside the USSR.

Even after mid-1941, the British Commonwealth fought in other land theatres either alone (North Africa, Malaya, Burma) or with sparse other nation's forces (e.g. NEI).

How successful was the Kriegsmarine compared with the Royal Navy in supporting their respective operational and strategic aims?

Nickdfresh
06-23-2016, 11:28 AM
...
Declared war Great Britain on Germany September 3, 1939, 11 a.m. along with France in September 3, 1939, 5 p.m. (and along the same day with India, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa)
They Brits could not stand alone with the Germans and a declaration of war only dig their own graves in

With full knowledge that Germany could not feasibly invade Britain as they were too weak on the high seas, even with Italy's help. The British and French were also confident that they held a huge strategic advantage in a long conflict and would be able to strangle Germany the way they did in WWI and outproduce them. The rapid Fall of France was due to a massively risky gamble on the part of the Germans as their inital "Fall Blau" war plan was little more than a defensive preparation and the early drafts of Fall Gelb were essentially extremely conservative replays of the Schleiffen Plan that might have resulted in a strategic deadlock at best - and a German attritional defeat at worst. The eventual Fall Gelb & Fall Rot German war plans often mistakenly simplified as "Blitzkrieg" were the result of absolute desperation that allowed Heer Gen. Halder to adopt and then tweak Manstein's plan of strategic envelopment as a desperate, risky gamble in his view..


Hitler not plan to attack England or France not yet in 1939 and shortly before 1939 made a 25-year contract to peace contest with France, which kicked the French side in September 3 1939

Actually he demanded an attack in October of 1939 and Halder bulwarked him knowing that such an early attack through Belgium would have resulted in a strategic deadlock in the best case scenario, and eventual defeat in the worst case. Another offensive was delayed until November, cleverly by Halder, knowing that a winter offensive would be unthinkable even by the Fuhrer. The lack of an early German war plan (Fall Blau) against France was a purely defensive relic of their strategic vulnerability inflicted by the Versailles Treaty, but was soon rewritten with the mobilization of the Heer and the formation of combined arms operational planning. And by this time the Germans knew full well the Anglo-French reaction to their offensive as they essentially had a dry run after two German senior officers' plane crashed in Belgium relieving the initial German plans to seize much of Belgium as a springboard for a more ambitious future offensive. One of many great strokes of luck the Germans had, all all the French strokes of luck were bad ones...

imi
06-24-2016, 02:27 AM
But the British Commonwealth fought alone against Germany until mid-1941 when the USSR became involved in theatres which had nothing to do with the British Commonwealth theatres. Also, Britain provided support to the USSR while the USSR never provided support of any significance to any force outside the USSR.

Even after mid-1941, the British Commonwealth fought in other land theatres either alone (North Africa, Malaya, Burma) or with sparse other nation's forces (e.g. NEI).

How successful was the Kriegsmarine compared with the Royal Navy in supporting their respective operational and strategic aims?

because Hitler did not deal particularly with the English, if Hitler really wanted to overrun full force all over England. He did not consider it a serious military force England
Anyway Hitler did not want war with England, the British declared war on the Germans in 1939
After the First World War, Hitler the then well understands English - French enmity against the Germans wich is apparently which it proved in september 1st, 1939 when the Polish campaign begins

imi
06-24-2016, 02:48 AM
With full knowledge that Germany could not feasibly invade Britain as they were too weak on the high seas, even with Italy's help. The British and French were also confident that they held a huge strategic advantage in a long conflict and would be able to strangle Germany the way they did in WWI and outproduce them. The rapid Fall of France was due to a massively risky gamble on the part of the Germans as their inital "Fall Blau" war plan was little more than a defensive preparation and the early drafts of Fall Gelb were essentially extremely conservative replays of the Schleiffen Plan that might have resulted in a strategic deadlock at best - and a German attritional defeat at worst. The eventual Fall Gelb & Fall Rot German war plans often mistakenly simplified as "Blitzkrieg" were the result of absolute desperation that allowed Heer Gen. Halder to adopt and then tweak Manstein's plan of strategic envelopment as a desperate, risky gamble in his view..



Actually he demanded an attack in October of 1939 and Halder bulwarked him knowing that such an early attack through Belgium would have resulted in a strategic deadlock in the best case scenario, and eventual defeat in the worst case. Another offensive was delayed until November, cleverly by Halder, knowing that a winter offensive would be unthinkable even by the Fuhrer. The lack of an early German war plan (Fall Blau) against France was a purely defensive relic of their strategic vulnerability inflicted by the Versailles Treaty, but was soon rewritten with the mobilization of the Heer and the formation of combined arms operational planning. And by this time the Germans knew full well the Anglo-French reaction to their offensive as they essentially had a dry run after two German senior officers' plane crashed in Belgium relieving the initial German plans to seize much of Belgium as a springboard for a more ambitious future offensive. One of many great strokes of luck the Germans had, all all the French strokes of luck were bad ones...

If Germany after the French campaign immediately smoothly invade England
After the French invasion of the country by the Germans for quite easily have been carried out with heavy artillery support perhaps from the area of Calais France, and with the help of the Kriegsmarine to fight against the Royal Navy with battleships and uboots and transport the Wehrmacht troops to England, and with the help of Luftwaffe bombers to attack the Royal Navy and transport German Paratroopers units

Hitler committed a big mistake when it did not deal with the British after the 1940 French campaign, rather turned against Russia

Nickdfresh
06-24-2016, 01:01 PM
because Hitler did not deal particularly with the English, if Hitler really wanted to overrun full force all over England. He did not consider it a serious military force England
Anyway Hitler did not want war with England, the British declared war on the Germans in 1939
After the First World War, Hitler the then well understands English - French enmity against the Germans wich is apparently which it proved in september 1st, 1939 when the Polish campaign begins

The "French enmity" was returned in spades by the Germans as a result of Versailles, the hated Occupation of the Rhineland after WWI, and the general history of belligerence between the two...

Nickdfresh
06-24-2016, 01:05 PM
If Germany after the French campaign immediately smoothly invade England
After the French invasion of the country by the Germans for quite easily have been carried out with heavy artillery support perhaps from the area of Calais France, and with the help of the Kriegsmarine to fight against the Royal Navy with battleships and uboots and transport the Wehrmacht troops to England, and with the help of Luftwaffe bombers to attack the Royal Navy and transport German Paratroopers units

Hitler committed a big mistake when it did not deal with the British after the 1940 French campaign, rather turned against Russia

Um, no. The Germans didn't have landing craft (just shitty converted river barges) and had a profound lack of shipping both naval and merchant. You're delusional if you think they could have "easily" pulled off the invasion. A simulation of Sea Lion held in the early 1970's complete with surviving commanders from both sides predicted that the German Heer became a beached whale contained even by and under-armed, undermanned British Army and Territorials. They were besieged and likely would have surrendered in time. And this was even without the Royal Navy getting lucky and slaughtering a large number of troops on their ships in the Channel. They never even gained air superiority over Britain!

imi
06-25-2016, 04:56 AM
The "French enmity" was returned in spades by the Germans as a result of Versailles, the hated Occupation of the Rhineland after WWI, and the general history of belligerence between the two...

The pact of Versailles from the English-French-Russian side was ultra unfair against especially Hungary and Germany
The Serbs started the war, not the Austro - Hungarian Monarchy and Germany!

- Germany 13% of the territory lost (in all around 6,5-7 million German population lost from Germany)
Mainly in industrial areas like the Ruhr area or port city of Danzig (now Gdansk, again in polish hands) which was entirely German area and population of the city
Partially collapsed the German economy for a while

- Austria did not lose any territory or population, even won from Hungary 4026 kmē of territory
Partially collapsed the Austrian economy for a while

- Hungary lost 72%(!) of his territory (and lost the Hungarian population of about 3.415 million person)
Mainly indrustrial territories lost mostly now called Romania, Slovakia, Serbia,and from Ukraine
The whole country's economy has collapsed from 1920, still today

imi
06-25-2016, 05:03 AM
They never even gained air superiority over Britain!
True the British air force and the british anti aircraft cannons and defended himself quite well.
But I think a Calais - Dover invasion the part of the Germans would have been feasible, but Hitler made a big mistake that did not deal with a possible British invasion

Laconia
07-01-2016, 11:38 PM
To answer the question, Churchill was certainly no worse than any of the other wartime leaders and better than some. He galvanized his people and left no stone unturned in his quest to help win the war. He supported trying almost any idea that someone might come up with and nothing was too outrageous. As an orator there were none better and he singlehandedly stiffened the resolve of the British people when the days were darkest. He had proved himself a "man of action" in his younger days and as Prime Minister was not afraid to go anywhere to see what the situation on the ground was and in turn this also helped keep up the morale of the men at the front. When all seems lost fate usually intervenes with a giant of a man and Winston Churchill certainly was that man.

Chevan
07-02-2016, 04:41 AM
But the British Commonwealth fought alone against Germany until mid-1941

Oh yeah , the heroical "phony war" , followed the shamful flight from Dunkirk;)


when the USSR became involved in theatres which had nothing to do with the British Commonwealth theatres. Also, Britain provided support to the USSR while the USSR never provided support of any significance to any force outside the USSR.

It's not true coz the Red Army actually provided a lot of military assistence to allies in far east, keeping and holding the 1 million Kwantung army out of active combat in Pacific within all the war. How many japanses were needed to conquere the entire Malaia? 50 or 100 thousands.
Besides all the British military supplies to USSR since september 1941 have been immediatelly paid by the GOLD ( unlike the american lend-lise). Britain got a very valiable profit from soviet involvement into the war on allied side coz since june the entire Luftwaffe has been totally switched on barbarossa.

Nickdfresh
07-03-2016, 09:41 AM
Oh yeah , the heroical "phony war" , followed the shamful flight from Dunkirk;)

The "Phony War" was fought in 1939, not 41'...


It's not true coz the Red Army actually provided a lot of military assistence to allies in far east, keeping and holding the 1 million Kwantung army out of active combat in Pacific within all the war. How many japanses were needed to conquere the entire Malaia? 50 or 100 thousands.
Besides all the British military supplies to USSR since september 1941 have been immediatelly paid by the GOLD ( unlike the american lend-lise). Britain got a very valiable profit from soviet involvement into the war on allied side coz since june the entire Luftwaffe has been totally switched on barbarossa.


The Soviets held some Japanese forces, but the Chinese Nationalists did far more so....

Chevan
07-03-2016, 03:25 PM
The "Phony War" was fought in 1939, not 41'...
Yes, but was the resault much different in 1941 for Britain?;)


The Soviets held some Japanese forces, but the Chinese Nationalists did far more so....
They did but not far more. The chinese fought very limited , episodic and humble partisan warfare in Manchukuo, it can't seriously harm to japanese army ( but japanese got an ideal pretext for ethnic cleansing and war crimes against chineses civil population there). Thus, most of Kwantung army was held in necessary reserve within all the war - although they were overstrenghted for local warfare - the pure strategical aims didn't let them to be used on the pacific front.

Nickdfresh
07-04-2016, 09:19 AM
Yes, but was the resault much different in 1941 for Britain?;)

That's a completely unfair assertion. Britain was fighting the Germans on many fronts from the air war over Europe to the Middle East. Their war was a lot less phony than the Soviet one up until 1941...


They did but not far more. The chinese fought very limited , episodic and humble partisan warfare in Manchukuo, it can't seriously harm to japanese army ( but japanese got an ideal pretext for ethnic cleansing and war crimes against chineses civil population there). Thus, most of Kwantung army was held in necessary reserve within all the war - although they were overstrenghted for local warfare - the pure strategical aims didn't let them to be used on the pacific front.

The Chinese Nationalist gov't was in complete and total war with the Japanese taking epic casualties everywhere, I'm talking the Imperial Japanese Army in general. The Kwantung Army was routinely used for rest and refit of combat units in China. Also, they were stripped and routinely reduced at the conflict evolved and lost nearly 50% of their manpower throughout the war...

Chevan
07-04-2016, 12:33 PM
That's a completely unfair assertion. Britain was fighting the Germans on many fronts from the air war over Europe to the Middle East.

Yeah, sure from the air war over the ONLY Birtain and against the only italians on the Middle East;) Name it right. Untill the mid 1941 Britain had no serious combat fight with Heer. Even during the "battle of Britain" Luftwaffe losed less planes then within ONE first month of Barbarossa. Or i'm wrong?


Their war was a lot less phony than the Soviet one up until 1941...

Nope Soviet didn't weage a phony war with Germany that period. We were busy by suppliyng the Nazis with oil and gain. Just like US supplued the Imperial Japanese army in war against CHina that time;)


The Chinese Nationalist gov't was in complete and total war with the Japanese taking epic casualties everywhere,

Really? and how much japanese divisions have been destroyed by the chinese nationalist ? They have no even food enough not just ammos and weapon.

I'm talking the Imperial Japanese Army in general. The Kwantung Army was routinely used for rest and refit of combat units in China. Also, they were stripped and routinely reduced at the conflict evolved and lost nearly 50% of their manpower throughout the war...
Yes , but even so it was a biggest single army of about 700 000 !! I've asked previously how much japanese were needed to conquer the entire Malay and Singapoor? and how much were needed to conquer the entire Phillipines? That's might be an interesting comparition

Nickdfresh
07-04-2016, 03:07 PM
Yeah, sure from the air war over the ONLY Birtain and against the only italians on the Middle East;) Name it right.

How do you think they got the Heer there? :)


Untill the mid 1941 Britain had no serious combat fight with Heer. Even during the "battle of Britain" Luftwaffe losed less planes then within ONE first month of Barbarossa. Or i'm wrong?

They also barely had an army. They had a small volunteer force that was seriously under-equipped prior to the Battle for France. They didn't have a lot of options. I'm not sure about the aircraft numbers actually...


Nope Soviet didn't weage a phony war with Germany that period. We were busy by suppliyng the Nazis with oil and gain. Just like US supplued the Imperial Japanese army in war against CHina that time;)

The U.S. began an embargo based on Japanese actions in China that led to Pearl Harbor...


Really? and how much japanese divisions have been destroyed by the chinese nationalist ? They have no even food enough not just ammos and weapon.

IDK the number of divisions. But they (the IJA) lost between 500,000 to over 1,000,000 men. The first est. is from Japanese sources and the second one was a PRC study...


Yes , but even so it was a biggest single army of about 700 000 !! I've asked previously how much japanese were needed to conquer the entire Malay and Singapoor? and how much were needed to conquer the entire Phillipines? That's might be an interesting comparition

It is an interesting comparison. But remember those defeated armies were blockaded and lacked much in the way of support. There were only about 15,000 American soldiers and marines in the Philippines at the time with the rest being Filipino under American command...

Rising Sun*
07-05-2016, 06:56 AM
Yes, but was the resault much different in 1941 for Britain?;)

Yes, after the Battle of Britain ended whatever faint hope there was for Sea Lion to land troops in Britain, let alone defeat Britain, and British Commowealth forces in North Africa engaged Germany there while the Royal Navy stopped the Kriegsmarine controlling the oceans.


he chinese fought very limited , episodic and humble partisan warfare in Manchukuo, it can't seriously harm to japanese army ( but japanese got an ideal pretext for ethnic cleansing and war crimes against chineses civil population there). Thus, most of Kwantung army was held in necessary reserve within all the war - although they were overstrenghted for local warfare - the pure strategical aims didn't let them to be used on the pacific front.

Japan had 51 IJN divisions in China / Manchuria in the lead up to the Pacific War in December 1941. The IJN could spare only 11 divisions for the southern thrust. So, the Chinese held 40 Japanese divisions in China / Manchuria, which is more than the Soviets did by themselves on the Manchurian border. You can't dismiss the Chinese contribution while extolling the Soviet contribution in holding Japanese troops away from other theatres. Moreover, the Chinese were fighting the Japanese divisions they were holding, while the Soviets weren't.

IIRC about five or six IJN divisions were returned from the Pacific to China in 1942 or early 1943 to deal with the continuing conflict there.

Rising Sun*
07-05-2016, 07:22 AM
against the only italians on the Middle East;)

So Operation Compass December 1940 - February 1941 in which Britain destroyed the Italian Tenth Army which had a numerical advantage over Britain of about 5:1 and where Britain took upwards of 120,000 Italian prisoners with many deaths and injuries on both sides, while nobody else was fighting Italy or Germany, doesn't count?

The people who fought, were wounded and died in that conflict would be offended that their efforts and sacrifices don't matter.


Name it right. Untill the mid 1941 Britain had no serious combat fight with Heer. Even during the "battle of Britain" Luftwaffe losed less planes then within ONE first month of Barbarossa. Or i'm wrong?

Barbarossa is irrelevant to the fact that only the British Commonwealth was fighting Germany, and Italy, up to mid-1941 when Barbarossa was launched (after the British Commonwealth had been fighting the Germans in North Africa, Greece and Crete). The USSR to that point had been happily carving up eastern Europe in deals with the Nazis, which gave the Soviets new territories without having to fight for them, never mind defending their homeland as the British had been since the outbreak of war and losing tens of thousands of civilians in Britain during that time.

I'm not ignoring the vastly greater military and civilian losses under far, far worse conditions endured in the USSR after Barbarossa, but they are irrelevant the fact that only Britain and its Commonwealth fought the existing Axis (Germany and Italy) alone to mid-1941. And if Britain hadn't done that, and stopped Hitler executing his main aim of going eastwards until mid-1941, then the Soviets probably would have faced an earlier invasion with poorer prospects of defending the USSR successfully, or at least doing so at far greater cost than the awful, awful cost the Soviets endured after Barbarossa.


I've asked previously how much japanese were needed to conquer the entire Malay and Singapoor?

British Commonwealth:Japan troops in Malaya were roughly 2:1.

Factor in that British Commonwealth troops were in large numbers only base troops in their bases; were fragmented; were not always even adequately trained or led; lacked battle hardening of many opposing Japanese units; lacked mobility due to need to defend widely separated airfields; and had virtually no air cover or armour against Japan's great superiority in both areas, and the numerical superiority on paper of British Commonwealth troops becomes meaningless.

The Japanese were better trained, better led, better planners, quicker to exploit battlefield advantages as they occurred, generally much better in battle tactics at all levels, better morale, more cohesive, and overall very much better than their British Commonwealth opponents. Add in Japan's great air and armour advantages and Japan was bound to win.

Given those factors favouring Japan, you can't disparage the British Commonwealth forces for losing to Japan in Malaya while disparaging the British Commonwealth forces who performed at least as well as the Japanese when the British Commonwealth forces defeated the numerically much superior Italian forces in North Africa.

Give credit where it is due, to the Japanese in Malaya (and everywhere else on land south of Vietnam up to January 1943) and to the British Commonwealth forces in North Africa up to mid-1941.

Chevan
07-06-2016, 01:25 PM
So Operation Compass December 1940 - February 1941 in which Britain destroyed the Italian Tenth Army which had a numerical advantage over Britain of about 5:1 and where Britain took upwards of 120,000 Italian prisoners with many deaths and injuries on both sides, while nobody else was fighting Italy or Germany, doesn't count?

Actualy Italy doesn't count. Common, the itlians were absolut loosers in that war - they have losed each battle they took part in. So the italians don't count. Coz after Rommel has arrived in Africa- brits lost all territories they got from italians.


The people who fought, were wounded and died in that conflict would be offended that their efforts and sacrifices don't matter.

The people who fought and died in operation compass - died in vain. Coz their sacrificies did not bring military profit. So what for they died?For italian pows?


Barbarossa is irrelevant to the fact that only the British Commonwealth was fighting Germany, and Italy, up to mid-1941 when Barbarossa was launched (after the British Commonwealth had been fighting the Germans in North Africa, Greece and Crete). The USSR to that point had been happily carving up eastern Europe in deals with the Nazis, which gave the Soviets new territories without having to fight for them, never mind defending their homeland as the British had been since the outbreak of war and losing tens of thousands of civilians in Britain during that time.

You did not fight alone.The chinas fought JPA desperatively and years before you. Besides the Red Army also fought the potential nazis ally finland for territories that time,and that was a war with serous efforts and casualties ( in persentage) for both sides. And unlike Britain, which losed to Germany in all the fonts that time- we have partly succesed.


I'm not ignoring the vastly greater military and civilian losses under far, far worse conditions endured in the USSR after Barbarossa, but they are irrelevant the fact that only Britain and its Commonwealth fought the existing Axis (Germany and Italy) alone to mid-1941. And if Britain hadn't done that, and stopped Hitler executing his main aim of going eastwards until mid-1941, then the Soviets probably would have faced an earlier invasion with poorer prospects of defending the USSR successfully, or at least doing so at far greater cost than the awful, awful cost the Soviets endured after Barbarossa.

Hmm thats looks very controversal IMO. Coz in fact the Britain didn't just fight - they losed and got the Wermach a brillian "military training" compain with brits and france in 1940, thus to the mid-1941 it has been transformed to the undefeatable mashine, the best landing ( and air) army in the world that leaved no chanches to Red Army. I'm pretty sure if the war with Germany happend in 1939 - germans never moved into mainland so deep. Coz in 1939 the German army were just much like a parody at real army - but britain and france by their military incompetence ( and covardice) have finally made the Nazis such a strong.


Factor in that British Commonwealth troops were in large numbers only base troops in their bases; were fragmented; were not always even adequately trained or led; lacked battle hardening of many opposing Japanese units; lacked mobility due to need to defend widely separated airfields; and had virtually no air cover or armour against Japan's great superiority in both areas, and the numerical superiority on paper of British Commonwealth troops becomes meaningless.

The Japanese were better trained, better led, better planners, quicker to exploit battlefield advantages as they occurred, generally much better in battle tactics at all levels, better morale, more cohesive, and overall very much better than their British Commonwealth opponents. Add in Japan's great air and armour advantages and Japan was bound to win.

And what prevented the brits to get an "adequate training or beeing defragmated"? The Stalin's purges among officers corp or fragile balls of top command?;)


Given those factors favouring Japan, you can't disparage the British Commonwealth forces for losing to Japan in Malaya while disparaging the British Commonwealth forces who performed at least as well as the Japanese when the British Commonwealth forces defeated the numerically much superior Italian forces in North Africa.

Oh again that italians as justification..I/m sure if the , dr Goebbel's invented untermenshen army really existed, he shoul rather look not to the east but at the their allies italians ;)

Chevan
07-06-2016, 01:42 PM
Japan had 51 IJN divisions in China / Manchuria in the lead up to the Pacific War in December 1941. The IJN could spare only 11 divisions for the southern thrust. So, the Chinese held 40 Japanese divisions in China / Manchuria, which is more than the Soviets did by themselves on the Manchurian border. You can't dismiss the Chinese contribution while extolling the Soviet contribution in holding Japanese troops away from other theatres. Moreover, the Chinese were fighting the Japanese divisions they were holding, while the Soviets weren't.

And note, that only 11 divisions were enough to made that mess for the allies on the South;) While Red Army forced Japane command to hold in "reserve" the 15-16 divisions in Manchuria. The Manchuria was not like a rest of China and the chinese resistence there were almost totally non-existed. The ONLY reason why so much japanes troop been there- the 35 soviet division behind the soviet-mongolian line. Yes sure chinese desperatively fought the rest 25 japanese and stop their advance by their blood , with no hope to win - but that was much more then faced allies on the pacific.

Chevan
07-06-2016, 02:01 PM
The U.S. began an embargo based on Japanese actions in China that led to Pearl Harbor...

Nick, the oil-trade embargo has been declared in mid 1941. The chines-japanese war has been started since 1937.Japanes have commited all those genocide in Nankin and ets , having american gasoline fueled.All that time the Washington sold pretty lot of oil to the japanese agressors. You also pretty well supplied the Japane with steel, mashinery and strategical military resources till the mid 1940. That's of cource doesn't deny the fact of american military help to Gomindan. But though..


IDK the number of divisions. But they (the IJA) lost between 500,000 to over 1,000,000 men. The first est. is from Japanese sources and the second one was a PRC study...

the 0.5-1 million was aprox the total KIA within the all the japanese-chinese war ( 1937-45) and over all the China. The chinese resistence in namely Mancguria was tiny , compared to the rest of China.


It is an interesting comparison. But remember those defeated armies were blockaded and lacked much in the way of support. There were only about 15,000 American soldiers and marines in the Philippines at the time with the rest being Filipino under American command...
yes sure ,those armies were doomed for an external reasons. But my point wasn't that. The 120 000 of japanese was an enourmous military force to the Pacific standards. What migh happend if they got chance to reliaze the Kwantung reserve - only god know. So in fact the Soviet contribution to the Pacific compain was wery essential. Just like the about 1 million of Red Army troop that we have to keep out of war with Germany in critical period of barbarossa.