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.
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.
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.
Please tell me what toxic rot you are peddling because I don’t understand it.
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.
That’s even more funny;) Coz Hitler at least since 1943 sited on drugs of dr Morell.
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.
- 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.
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
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
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?
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…
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
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
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…
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!
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 km² 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
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
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.
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.
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…