"The war according to Churchill"

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Marcelo Jenisch
Member
Posts: 724
Joined: 22 May 2011, 19:27
Location: Porto Alegre

"The war according to Churchill"

#1

Post by Marcelo Jenisch » 06 Feb 2013, 17:37

I don't want to discuss counterfactual history. However, I''m interesting in know about the events that could have changed history if Roosevelt had listen to Churchill, based in existing evidence of Churchill's plans. For example, it is true that Churchill wanted to let the Russians and Germans fight each other to exhaustion?

User avatar
BDV
Member
Posts: 3704
Joined: 10 Apr 2009, 17:11

Re: "The war according to Churchill"

#2

Post by BDV » 06 Feb 2013, 18:43

's got to be more clear/detailed than that, I think.
Nobody expects the Fallschirm! Our chief weapon is surprise; surprise and fear; fear and surprise. Our 2 weapons are fear and surprise; and ruthless efficiency. Our *3* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency; and almost fanatical devotion


Marcelo Jenisch
Member
Posts: 724
Joined: 22 May 2011, 19:27
Location: Porto Alegre

Re: "The war according to Churchill"

#3

Post by Marcelo Jenisch » 06 Feb 2013, 19:05

Just interested in know Churchill's plans regarding the Soviets. I know of Operation Unthinkable.

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7051
Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
Location: Mississippi

Re: "The war according to Churchill"

#4

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 06 Feb 2013, 20:41

Marcelo Jenisch wrote:I don't want to discuss counterfactual history. However, I''m interesting in know about the events that could have changed history if Roosevelt had listen to Churchill, based in existing evidence of Churchill's plans. For example, it is true that Churchill wanted to let the Russians and Germans fight each other to exhaustion?
I would be interested if there was ever a time Roosevelt did not listen to Chruchill :roll: :lol:

Most of Churchill's more hair-brained Scotch induced ideas brought up by his many "friends" were shot down by members of the British General Staff, et.al., before him and Roosevelt could really get them going.

As to the Russians fighting the Germans to exhaustion , yea I can see that as typical of the Britsh /Churchill philosophy in WWII. As Operation Round-UP was "Scotched" :milwink: and Overlord came a little too late , once the realization set in that the Russian were going to win, and was way Overkill by the time. Oh well, Drunken Churchill only cost us , half of Europe, a 50 year cold war, and the British their Empire.

Tom from Cornwall
Member
Posts: 3209
Joined: 01 May 2006, 20:52
Location: UK

Re: "The war according to Churchill"

#5

Post by Tom from Cornwall » 06 Feb 2013, 22:02

Dear Christopher,
Most of Churchill's more hair-brained Scotch induced ideas brought up by his many "friends" were shot down by members of the British General Staff, et.al., before him and Roosevelt could really get them going.
I think you'll find that Churchill was a champagne and brandy man :D

That seemed like the only fact that you actually offered in your rather peculiar post :roll:

Regards

Tom

User avatar
BDV
Member
Posts: 3704
Joined: 10 Apr 2009, 17:11

Re: "The war according to Churchill"

#6

Post by BDV » 06 Feb 2013, 22:44

Nobody expects the Fallschirm! Our chief weapon is surprise; surprise and fear; fear and surprise. Our 2 weapons are fear and surprise; and ruthless efficiency. Our *3* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency; and almost fanatical devotion

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 8753
Joined: 29 Dec 2006, 21:11
Location: Poland

Re: "The war according to Churchill"

#7

Post by wm » 06 Feb 2013, 23:06

- of all tyrannies in history the Bolshevist tyranny is the worst, the most destructive, and the most degrading
- that foul combination of criminality and animalism
- everyone can see how Communism rots the soul of a nation; how it makes it abject and hungry in peace, and proves it base and abominable in war.

Winston S. Churchill, Blood, Sweat, and Tears 1941

Marcelo Jenisch
Member
Posts: 724
Joined: 22 May 2011, 19:27
Location: Porto Alegre

.

#8

Post by Marcelo Jenisch » 06 Feb 2013, 23:29

I was thinking about the idea of the Anglo-Americans let the Germans and Soviets fight each other, and immediately "problems" came to my mind, which I confirmed that were viewed in the same form at the time. After Kursk, it would be the ideal time to the Allies let the Germans and Soviets fight each other, since the risk of a Soviet colapse would be small. However, that would leave the risk they could have signed some peace agreement between each other. If they did, not only the Allies would have a much more difficult military challange, but also would risk, in the end, again loose substantial territory for the Soviets, because they could have well let the Western Allies defeat Germany and then launch an invasion of Eastern Europe.

KDF33
Member
Posts: 1282
Joined: 17 Nov 2012, 02:16

Re: "The war according to Churchill"

#9

Post by KDF33 » 07 Feb 2013, 00:31

Why would the Allies want the Soviets to be even more exhausted by the Germans?

Marcelo Jenisch
Member
Posts: 724
Joined: 22 May 2011, 19:27
Location: Porto Alegre

Re: "The war according to Churchill"

#10

Post by Marcelo Jenisch » 07 Feb 2013, 00:38

KDF33 wrote:Why would the Allies want the Soviets to be even more exhausted by the Germans?
To not let the Russians do what they did historically: grab land that did not belonged to them, specially Poland.

KDF33
Member
Posts: 1282
Joined: 17 Nov 2012, 02:16

Re: "The war according to Churchill"

#11

Post by KDF33 » 07 Feb 2013, 00:47

Why would the Allies be opposed to the Soviets occupying Eastern Europe?

Marcelo Jenisch
Member
Posts: 724
Joined: 22 May 2011, 19:27
Location: Porto Alegre

Re: "The war according to Churchill"

#12

Post by Marcelo Jenisch » 07 Feb 2013, 01:05

They did with Poland. Operation Unthinkable was just for that.

KDF33
Member
Posts: 1282
Joined: 17 Nov 2012, 02:16

Re: "The war according to Churchill"

#13

Post by KDF33 » 07 Feb 2013, 01:18

Operation Unthinkable was just a staff study ordered by Churchill, and thus did not represent the wider Allied intentions toward the USSR.

Ultimately, nothing that the Soviet Union conquered in Eastern Europe during the war was significant enough to upset the overall balance of power, which tilted heavily in favor of the Anglo-Americans at the end of the conflict. That it quickly swung back, in Continental Europe, in favor of Moscow after the American withdrawal is more a testament to Washington's willingness to risk a substantial reduction in deployed forces than to any inherent Soviet strength.

Marcelo Jenisch
Member
Posts: 724
Joined: 22 May 2011, 19:27
Location: Porto Alegre

Re: "The war according to Churchill"

#14

Post by Marcelo Jenisch » 07 Feb 2013, 01:25

You can be right. Poland was mostly an excuse for the Allies move against Hitler's imperialist intentions, what they didn't agree. However, at the end of the war the question of Poland did generated disagreement between them.

KDF33
Member
Posts: 1282
Joined: 17 Nov 2012, 02:16

Re: "The war according to Churchill"

#15

Post by KDF33 » 07 Feb 2013, 01:32

I certainly agree that it generated disagreements and that Stalin's land grab in Eastern Europe struck the Western Allies as illegitimate and indicative of Communism's expansionist impulses. Was it reason enough to start World War III? I don't think so, especially since the Anglo-Americans had gotten back the core of industrial Europe, France and (Western) Germany, whereas the Soviets had gotten a bunch of under-industrialised Eastern countries lacking in raw materials.

I feel like a lot of people think that the outcome of WWII was a "gain" for the Soviets, and thus a concomitant "loss" for the West, and that it paved the way to 45 years of Cold War and the Soviet nuclear threat. I disagree with that assessment: the West's gains, in terms of valuable resources and population, far exceeded those of the Soviets, especially if one considers the USSR's massive loss of life.

Ultimately, tensions between the Western powers and the USSR were probably inevitable, and Hitler's expansionist drive in the 1930s, as well as the USSR's then-incomplete industrialisation, just masked (and came close to preventing) the long-term trend that Russia was destined to be Europe's preeminent power due to it's sheer endowment in population and raw resources. To buttress it's status as a great power and to guarantee it's security, it also was virtually guaranteed that the USSR would pursue a military nuclear program. So the USSR's Western drive during WWII just determined where the European borders of the Cold War would be, not whether or not there would be a Cold War in Europe.
Last edited by KDF33 on 07 Feb 2013, 01:45, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply

Return to “What if”