"The war according to Churchill"
-
- Member
- Posts: 724
- Joined: 22 May 2011, 19:27
- Location: Porto Alegre
"The war according to Churchill"
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?
Re: "The war according to Churchill"
'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
-
- Member
- Posts: 724
- Joined: 22 May 2011, 19:27
- Location: Porto Alegre
Re: "The war according to Churchill"
Just interested in know Churchill's plans regarding the Soviets. I know of Operation Unthinkable.
-
- Member
- Posts: 7051
- Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
- Location: Mississippi
Re: "The war according to Churchill"
I would be interested if there was ever a time Roosevelt did not listen to ChruchillMarcelo 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?
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" 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.
-
- Member
- Posts: 3209
- Joined: 01 May 2006, 20:52
- Location: UK
Re: "The war according to Churchill"
Dear Christopher,
That seemed like the only fact that you actually offered in your rather peculiar post
Regards
Tom
I think you'll find that Churchill was a champagne and brandy manMost 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.
That seemed like the only fact that you actually offered in your rather peculiar post
Regards
Tom
Re: "The war according to Churchill"
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
Re: "The war according to Churchill"
- 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
-
- Member
- Posts: 724
- Joined: 22 May 2011, 19:27
- Location: Porto Alegre
.
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.
Re: "The war according to Churchill"
Why would the Allies want the Soviets to be even more exhausted by the Germans?
-
- Member
- Posts: 724
- Joined: 22 May 2011, 19:27
- Location: Porto Alegre
Re: "The war according to Churchill"
To not let the Russians do what they did historically: grab land that did not belonged to them, specially Poland.KDF33 wrote:Why would the Allies want the Soviets to be even more exhausted by the Germans?
Re: "The war according to Churchill"
Why would the Allies be opposed to the Soviets occupying Eastern Europe?
-
- Member
- Posts: 724
- Joined: 22 May 2011, 19:27
- Location: Porto Alegre
Re: "The war according to Churchill"
They did with Poland. Operation Unthinkable was just for that.
Re: "The war according to Churchill"
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.
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.
-
- Member
- Posts: 724
- Joined: 22 May 2011, 19:27
- Location: Porto Alegre
Re: "The war according to Churchill"
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.
Re: "The war according to Churchill"
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.
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.