Luftwaffe focused in the East

[Gixxerman]

There have been a number of comments around Churchills comment, writings and views on Hitler and less about his equally negative views on Stalin.

I'm not disputing Churchill loathed Stalin.
My point is that he understood nazi Germany to be the greater threat.
That is not to say that the USSR was not seen as a threat, just less of one.

However we and I do include myself have forgotten one important point. Churchill wasn't the Prime Minister when war broke out, Neville Chamberlain was and there was a strong lobby for peace in english politics.

This is true.....but this also ignores the fact that the British public mood had altered radically after Hitler rolled into Prague.
The English lobby for peace existed, but how large it truly was will possibly remain a mystery, at least until the next big round of classified documents get opened in this half of the 21st century (I know some documents are scheduled to be released in 2055, although some are marked to never be opened).

Had Hitler avoided attacking France then Chamberlain wouldn't have fallen from power

Actually Chamberlain departed after the disaster in Norway, not France, that was yet to come it came under Churchill......and it did not see Churchill have to leave.

GB's, i.e. Churchill's, resolve is not in question; only its capability to act effectively.

Shortly after the fall of France a report evaluating GB's chances and containing a pregnant preamble was issued. It contained the language,

"…in the even of terms being offered to Britain which would place her entirely at the mercy of Germany through disarmament….; what are the prospects of our continuing the war…"

This suggests that had more favorable terms been offered, the matter would have been open to other consideration.

Well my observatiuon here is different.
The British Civil Service is doing what the British Civil Service does, namely offering options for consideration.
It says nothing about the 'weight' one might place on those options nor the likelyhood of them coming to pass, nor the political interpretation of those options.

My view is that Churchill understood perfectly well what a nazi victory would mean......and it is simply a fact of history that he had plenty of opportunity to just stand by and watch Hitler Stalin tear each other to pieces.
He did not preferred to see the UK effectively go bankrupt lose her Empire rather than see nazism dominant in the world.
Even when it became clear that this also meant the loss of a lot of central eastern Europe to Stalin's communism.

And during the closing months of the war, Churchill put GB's blood into gaining democracy for Greece. However, lacking FDR's support, he was unable to do the same for Poland though the Free Polish forces had been extraordinarily brave allies. It can be argued that Churchill came to view Stalin as fully as evil as Hitler. Though irrepressible, he was disheartened by the outcome with Stalin occupying Eastern Europe rather than Hitler.

Well we reach different conclusions here too.
My view is that if it was avoidable obviously he would have preferred a free central eastern Europe.
But, given the choice, a communist dominated one was slightly preferable to a nazi dominated one.

It took almost 60yrs to see the world rid of communist Europe, my view is that Churchill knew a nazi Europe may well have lasted longer, with all that entailed for the populations deemed unworthy of life etc etc.

Finally, there's good reason to believe that a military empire, particularly a brutal one, drains rather than strengthens the aggressor. This was George Kennon's insight that lead to containment rather than military action against the Soviet Union. But development of this theory would be even greater abuse of the thread.

Now this I have a lot of time for, the question is, how many decades end up being spent getting there how for long does the malign influence continue to resonat down the ages.
Look at today with the reality we have.
Nazism continues to attract it's devotes, continues to shape attitudes, even in countries where better really ought to be known where families were directly effected.

I suspect that an evening over a pint would bring us much closer in our views.

Anytime my friend anytime, I'm sure we'd have an interesting enjoyable chat.

 

[stona]

"... I am not a huge fan of Churchill, he was essentially a 19th century imperialist..."

So .....? The 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th centuries were all about imperialism .... it would be surprising if Churchill wasn't an imperialist.

PC thinking is insidious.

MM

It's not PC thinking it is a trite comment about Churchill. I was making a passing comment in a post about something else entirely,hardly the place for an analysis of "Churchillian" politics. His attitudes to Empire,race and were old fashioned and outdated in the 1930s. The death knell of Empires had sounded years previously. Churchill was one of those who chose not to hear it.

"it would be surprising if Churchill wasn't an imperialist."

Why? Many of his contemporaries did not hold Churchill's views on Empire and race. Some regarded him as a political dinosaur and were unnerved by some of his extreme political views.
That I would suggest is wooly thinking.

None of this detracts from him having been a truly great war time leader,nor did it prevent the British public comprehensively voting him out at the first peace time opportunity.
He never did see the irony in that,a political victim of the very democracy he had fought so hard,and done so much,to preserve.

Steve

 

[michaelmaltby]

".. wooly thinking..." That's me ... from time-to-time ...

Political Correctness - as I understand it - is judging people and events from the past by the standards, insights and tastes of the present.

I am sure all kinds of people in GB and elsewhere weren't "imperialists" - but so what? They didn't diminish the extent or impact of Empire. The centuries I rattled off were centuries in which European Nations built empires. It may not be mankind's most attractive trait but the history of human civilization is a revolving door of empires -- which suggests that the "urge" to expand and influence is almost biologically hardwired in humans.[And I might add - hardwired in all life - from beavers to army ants and crab grass]

MM

 

[stona]

Political Correctness - as I understand it - is judging people and events from the past by the standards, insights and tastes of the present.
MM

That's not what I understand the phrase "political correctness" to mean at all so we'd best leave it there.

This definition from the notoriously unreliable wikithingy more or less coincides with my understanding of the phrase.

Political correctness (adjectivally, politically correct; both forms commonly abbreviated to PC) is a term which denotes language, ideas, policies, and behavior seen as seeking to minimize social and institutional offense in occupational, gender, racial, cultural, sexual orientation, certain other religions, beliefs or ideologies, disability, and age-related contexts, and, as purported by the term, doing so to an excessive extent.

Cheers

Steve

 

[michaelmaltby]

Good that we cleared that up, Steve. Now back to the war ...

MM

 

[Balljoint]

Well my observatiuon here is different.
The British Civil Service is doing what the British Civil Service does, namely offering options for consideration.
It says nothing about the 'weight' one might place on those options nor the likelyhood of them coming to pass, nor the political interpretation of those options.

The civil servants in this case were Chamberlain and other ministers as well as Churchill's military advisers in response to a request by Churchill. You can find the full language at The Second World War, Illustrated and Abridged, by Winston S. Churchill, page 65.

My view is that Churchill understood perfectly well what a nazi victory would mean......and it is simply a fact of history that he had plenty of opportunity to just stand by and watch Hitler Stalin tear each other to pieces.
He did not preferred to see the UK effectively go bankrupt lose her Empire rather than see nazism dominant in the world.
Even when it became clear that this also meant the loss of a lot of central eastern Europe to Stalin's communism.

But was he right netting the actual suffering and ruin versus that had he opted out? Churchill was the ideal leader but he was also a nineteenth century man.



Well we reach different conclusions here too.
My view is that if it was avoidable obviously he would have preferred a free central eastern Europe.
But, given the choice, a communist dominated one was slightly preferable to a nazi dominated one.

Again, was the slightly preferable choice worth the price, personal animosity aside

It took almost 60yrs to see the world rid of communist Europe, my view is that Churchill knew a nazi Europe may well have lasted longer, with all that entailed for the populations deemed unworthy of life etc etc.

I suppose this is a political question about which reasonable men can differ. But I don't see that the war avoided any of this by Hitler; but in fact amplified it.

Now this I have a lot of time for, the question is, how many decades end up being spent getting there how for long does the malign influence continue to resonat down the ages.
Look at today with the reality we have.
Nazism continues to attract it's devotes, continues to shape attitudes, even in countries where better really ought to be known where families were directly effected.

I don't see the malaise continuing from some source so much as bubbling up from the dark side of human nature. It would find a new form if the preexisting template weren't available. The task is to contain and minimize it since we're not going to eradicate it.

 

[Balljoint]

Sorry about the orginazation.

 

[Gixxerman]

Interesting debate Balljoint......even with the quote fail I can see the points you're making.
I might be wrong but I think that the report you mention was from the British Civil Service (but where people like Chamberlain etc contributed are quoted at length). I suspect it is the usual and largely presentation of options.

As for whether the price was 'worth it' to the UK?
Well given the genocidal plans of a victorious 3rd Reich I would have to say yes, the plan to either directly murder or more slowly work to death large sections of the populations of central and eastern Europe, Russia and Ukraine are reason enough for any humanist I would say.....and for all his flaws Churchill did have a genuine humanist instinct.
He may have been a supporter of the conservative (both meanings) British elite but his appeal to the common man was no accident or fake construct.....and a generation of working class tory voters in the UK stand testament to that.

(interesting as Stona points out by victory in 1945 the British people had had quite enough of 'blood sweat and tears' and although surprising to some I think it was perfectly natural that they then looked elsewhere for a vision of what the peace ought to be like.......they did re-elect Churchill again in 1951 though)

As for nazism today?
Well as I mentioned you only have to look in the most seemingly unlikely of places.
I have been staggered to see neo-nazi/ultra-nationalist groups (admittedly small) making themselves public in todays Russia for instance.
It simply amazes me that this has been tollerated as a common theme with many of these groups is a 'worship' of Hitler and all that.
I agree eradication is probably impossible, I guess some will always be lost drawn to hate democracy collegiate decision making, love a supposed direct certainty, a rigid brutality, cruel vicious - and justify it pretending that it is simply our nature (or like that Norwegian fool Breivik excuse it as somehow 'necessary').
Such a tragedy.

 

[stona]

I'd just like to point out that we,the British people didn't elect Churchill as Prime Minister during WW2. He was appointed to lead a coalition government. In fact we don't elect Prime Ministers at all. The most recent incumbent who never led his party to the people was of course Gordon Brown.

There is no doubting Churchill's antipathy to Communism. As late as 1937 he wrote.

"I will not pretend that, if I had to choose between Communism and Nazism, I would choose Communism".

Steve

 

[Gixxerman]

That's true stona......thank God we never got into an either/or situation.

I'd also say though that anyone's thoughts about nazism in 1937 would be radically altered once informed by what we found out if not before the end of the war then certainly after it re the extermination policies.

 

[stona]

That's true stona......thank God we never got into an either/or situation.

I'd also say though that anyone's thoughts about nazism in 1937 would be radically altered once informed by what we found out if not before the end of the war then certainly after it re the extermination policies.

Yes and Churchill was a politician who had no difficulty reconciling a complete volte-face with his conscience!

He did appreciate that the greater menace to what he termed "our Christian civilisation" lay with nazi Germany rather than the Soviet Union.........just.

Cheers

Steve

 

[Njaco]

I don't see the malaise continuing from some source so much as bubbling up from the dark side of human nature. It would find a new form if the preexisting template weren't available. The task is to contain and minimize it since we're not going to eradicate it.

Sounds like the plot to "Prometheus".

 

[rank amateur]

You just can't take a day of I guess...

Actually Chamberlain departed after the disaster in Norway, not France, that was yet to come it came under Churchill......and it did not see Churchill have to leave.

I stand corrected, that is he resigned may 9th 1940. Should have checked more than one source ;-(




My view is that Churchill understood perfectly well what a nazi victory would mean......and it is simply a fact of history that he had plenty of opportunity to just stand by and watch Hitler Stalin tear each other to pieces.
He did not preferred to see the UK effectively go bankrupt lose her Empire rather than see nazism dominant in the world.
Even when it became clear that this also meant the loss of a lot of central eastern Europe to Stalin's communism.

My view is that if it was avoidable obviously he would have preferred a free central eastern Europe.
But, given the choice, a communist dominated one was slightly preferable to a nazi dominated one.

It took almost 60yrs to see the world rid of communist Europe, my view is that Churchill knew a nazi Europe may well have lasted longer, with all that entailed for the populations deemed unworthy of life etc etc.

I think mr Churchill deserves a lot of credit but me thinks you give him a bit too much. But that's just my opinion.

I think dictatorial states usually have a relative short lifespan. Communism is an exception. Check Spain, Portugal, Joegoslavia or Rumania, when the initial dictator dies, his heirs most of the time do not succeed in keeping the state together unless there is a strong political doctrine that can survive him. in Nazi Germany Hitler saw himself as the embodyingment of Germany and never hesitated to show that. So even with the Nazi doctrine I don't think any successor of Hitler would be in business too long.

 

[Gixxerman]

You just can't take a day of I guess...

lol some days it's just that way

I think mr Churchill deserves a lot of credit but me thinks you give him a bit too much. But that's just my opinion.

.....and you're entitled to it.
But I would say that maybe just maybe Churchill's infusion of tenacious defiance into the British body politic (and possibly some parts of her military......I'm thinking of things his appointment to Nth Africa of that other PITA dogged terrier type Monty) is one reason why I don't speak German the UK was able to hold out remain independent was not forced to seek terms.
Lots of other countries caved, maybe Churchill is one major factor in why we did not. I think so anyway.

I think dictatorial states usually have a relative short lifespan.

Well that's possible.......but consider this, the (in our terms) brutal militarist state of Sparta lasted almost 900yrs, history shows these things can happen, it is not impossible......and a modern state ruthlessly controlling using all the media and the organs of the state to knowingly deliberately keep it's citizens informed of only an approved message is no easy thing to remove.
What was it the Jesuits said about give me the child until 7 and I'll show you the man?

Besides, in terms of damage their murderous policies Hitler's gang wouldn't have needed much beyond a full decade to either starve or work to death the millions who didn't actually suffer the instant deportation to the death camps.
They wouldn't need to have lasted too long to carry out the worst of their plans.

 

[Njaco]

How about you guys start a separate thread about the pros and cons of Churchill and we get back to the Eastern Front?

I just read that during the latter half of 1941, because of needs in other theatres, the LW was reduced from 2400 a/c to 1700 a/c (rough estimate).

 

[rank amateur]

How about you guys start a separate thread about the pros and cons of Churchill and we get back to the Eastern Front?

Naaaah, don't bother. We'll never get to any other agreement either than we're both glad the man was around in 1940

I just read that during the latter half of 1941, because of needs in other theatres, the LW was reduced from 2400 a/c to 1700 a/c (rough estimate).

Are you talking about the eastern front now?

 

[Njaco]

Yeah, forgot that. Was curious how that would effect the outcome on the Russian Front if those a/c were retained.

 

[rank amateur]

Yeah, forgot that. Was curious how that would effect the outcome on the Russian Front if those a/c were retained.

Depending on the scenario we choose to pick. If Germany somehow manages to keep both the French and the Brits out of the war, there would not have been any other fronts than the one(s) against the USSR and ofcourse the defence of the Fatherland.
I don't see Mussolini start his war against Yugolavia without France being overcome. But I'm sure some one is going to prove me wrong

 

[AARP Hurricane]

Forgive me, I come into this one late!

The animosity between Poland and the Reich was a manufactured one. In reality they had much in common. Both anti-semetic, both facist military dictatorships, both with teritorial claims against neighbours and both fervantly anti communist. Had Hitler joined in ALLIANCE with Poland than the succesfull invasion of the Soviet Union could have:

1) started earlier thus avoiding the mud and snow
2) started at the 1939 borders of the Soviet Union and Poland
3) had the inconsiderable support of the Polish Army
4) began at least one year earlier without all the incumbent losses of the Western and Mediterrannean Campaigns (3000 aircraft more and 2000 tanks)
5) actually had the tacit and possibly tangiable support of the West including the USA
6) virtually no KV 1 and T 34's for the army to deal with, no Yak 1's Mig 3's or IL 2's and air superiority with the Bf 109E.

Thinking out of the box: imagine an Anglo-French and Turkish Army thrusting upwards into the Caucauses from Persia in support of the German-Rumanian-Bulgarians across Ukraine, Crimea into Southern Russia! Not an imposible thought as the British Army had opeated in the area in 1919 against the Reds and with the Turks and French in 1856 in the Crimea.

Yep Hitler screwed up with his hate if the Poles. Cost him the war.