Warning: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in ..../includes/class_bbcode.php on line 2958
Churchill versus the rest - Best or worst WWII leader? - Page 2
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 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 49

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

  1. #16
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Dublin, Ireland
    Posts
    783

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

    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.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    104

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

    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.
    Last edited by Wittmann; 08-08-2015 at 11:47 PM.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Australia-Melbourne
    Posts
    624

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Rising Sun* View Post
    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.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Australia-Melbourne
    Posts
    624

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

    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.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    9,344

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

    Quote Originally Posted by aly j View Post
    Churchill was a puppet leader that sold his soul, nation and people to one group of people.
    Which group?

    Quote Originally Posted by aly j View Post
    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)".


    Quote Originally Posted by aly j View Post
    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.
    ..
    A rational army would run away.
    Montesquieu

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    9,344

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

    Quote Originally Posted by aly j View Post
    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.
    ..
    A rational army would run away.
    Montesquieu

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas
    Posts
    606

    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.
    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.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas
    Posts
    606

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Nickdfresh View Post
    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.

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas
    Posts
    606

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

    Quote Originally Posted by aly j View Post
    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.

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    250

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

    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.

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Southern Russia , Krasnodar
    Posts
    4,081

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

    Quote Originally Posted by royal744 View Post
    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.

    "I decide who is a Jew and who is an Aryan "- Hermann Goering

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Southern Russia , Krasnodar
    Posts
    4,081

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

    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.
    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.
    Last edited by Chevan; 06-19-2016 at 02:48 AM.

    "I decide who is a Jew and who is an Aryan "- Hermann Goering

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    -
    Posts
    759

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

    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
    "The consciousness that I am alive, makes me wild dreams every day"
    (Helmut Wolff lieutenant colonel, one who survived the breakout of Budapest)

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Italia
    Posts
    224

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

    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-...er-vt3232.html
    Last edited by DVX; 06-21-2016 at 06:14 PM.

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    9,344

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

    Quote Originally Posted by imi View Post
    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?
    ..
    A rational army would run away.
    Montesquieu

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 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
  •