Türk porno yayini yapan http://www.smfairview.com ve http://www.idoproxy.com adli siteler rokettube videolarini da HD kalitede yayinlayacagini acikladi. Ayrica porno indir ozelligiyle de http://www.mysticinca.com adli porno sitesi devreye girdi.
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 49

Thread: Churchill versus the rest - Best or worst WWII leader?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    9,286

    Default Churchill versus the rest - Best or worst WWII leader?

    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.
    Last edited by Rising Sun*; 05-27-2014 at 11:18 AM.
    ..
    A rational army would run away.
    Montesquieu

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Dublin, Ireland
    Posts
    779

    Default Re: Churchill versus the rest - Best or worst WWII leader?

    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.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Valhalla
    Posts
    66

    Default Re: Churchill versus the rest - Best or worst WWII leader?

    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.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Paramilitary wing of CAMRA
    Posts
    4,099

    Default Re: Churchill versus the rest - Best or worst WWII leader?

    Quote Originally Posted by witman111 View Post
    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").

    Quote Originally Posted by witman111 View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by witman111 View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by witman111 View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by witman111 View Post
    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.
    I have neither the time nor the inclination to differentiate between the incompetent and the merely unfortunate - Curtis E LeMay

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    South West
    Posts
    953

    Default Re: Churchill versus the rest - Best or worst WWII leader?

    Quick few notes


    Quote Originally Posted by witman111 View Post
    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

    IN the days of lace-ruffles, perukes and brocade
    Brown Bess was a partner whom none could despise
    An out-spoken, flinty-lipped, brazen-faced jade,
    With a habit of looking men straight in the eyes
    At Blenheim and Ramillies fops would confess
    They were pierced to the heart by the charms of Brown Bess.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Trento
    Posts
    106

    Default Re: Churchill versus the rest - Best or worst WWII leader?

    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.
    Pauci sed semper immites!

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    9,286

    Default Re: Churchill versus the rest - Best or worst WWII leader?

    Quote Originally Posted by JR* View Post
    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.
    ..
    A rational army would run away.
    Montesquieu

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Valhalla
    Posts
    66

    Default Re: Churchill versus the rest - Best or worst WWII leader?

    Quote Originally Posted by pdf27 View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by pdf27 View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rising Sun* View Post
    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.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Paramilitary wing of CAMRA
    Posts
    4,099

    Default Re: Churchill versus the rest - Best or worst WWII leader?

    Quote Originally Posted by witman111 View Post
    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).

    Quote Originally Posted by witman111 View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by witman111 View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by witman111 View Post
    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 and established the committee which invented it? 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!
    I have neither the time nor the inclination to differentiate between the incompetent and the merely unfortunate - Curtis E LeMay

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    South West
    Posts
    953

    Default Re: Churchill versus the rest - Best or worst WWII leader?

    Quote Originally Posted by witman111 View Post
    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
    IN the days of lace-ruffles, perukes and brocade
    Brown Bess was a partner whom none could despise
    An out-spoken, flinty-lipped, brazen-faced jade,
    With a habit of looking men straight in the eyes
    At Blenheim and Ramillies fops would confess
    They were pierced to the heart by the charms of Brown Bess.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    delft
    Posts
    126

    Default Re: Churchill versus the rest - Best or worst WWII leader?

    Quote Originally Posted by JR* View Post
    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-fil...-on-whitehall/

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    delft
    Posts
    126

    Default Re: Churchill versus the rest - Best or worst WWII leader?

    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.
    Last edited by Frankly Dude Really; 03-09-2015 at 05:33 AM.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    6

    Default Re: Churchill versus the rest - Best or worst WWII leader?

    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.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buffalo, New York
    Posts
    7,412

    Default Re: Churchill versus the rest - Best or worst WWII leader?

    Quote Originally Posted by Spit109 View Post
    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...

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    104

    Default Re: Churchill versus the rest - Best or worst WWII leader?

    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.
    Last edited by Wittmann; 07-03-2015 at 01:00 AM.

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •