WW2 Allied Leadership
- Thread starter michaelmaltby
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
syscom3
Pacific Historian
I wouldnt say tactics can be ignored. But, less than optimum tactics can be offset by shear industrial power and the resultant firepower it can produce.
Look at the story of the US army vs the Germans. The Germans did have better small unit tactics, weapons and superior tanks and AFV's.
But the US qualitative inferiority in those categories wasn't so bad as to be suicidal or insurmountable, and the allied industrial power more than offset it.
So again, Marshall gets credit for creating the conditions to allow his army to prevail.
syscom3
Pacific Historian
After reading up on FDR, I would say it was FDR who had more guts. Truman would not have played cat and mouse with the nazi's in the Atlantic in 1939-1941 like FDR did.
Last edited:
Freebird
Master Sergeant
Your post is disturbing in so many ways. 
I could really go off on it, but I won't.
Hitler was a swell guy, eh what?
Flying to Egypt Moscow via Gibraltar, Malta Cyprus, not like there were ant Axis aircraft about in the Med eh?
Sailing across the Atlantic to conference with Roosevelt, good thing the Germans didn't have any U-boats lurking about...
I suppose bombs dropping on London during the Blitz doesn't count does it, feeling real "safe" over there in Whitehall...
Just out of curiousity, from the Fall of France in July 1940 until Barbarossa in June 1941, just who exactly was doing the other 95% of the fighting?
And just who exactly would be our candidate for "Great Leader"?
I could really go off on it, but I won't.
Hitler was a swell guy, eh what?
Flying to Egypt Moscow via Gibraltar, Malta Cyprus, not like there were ant Axis aircraft about in the Med eh?
Sailing across the Atlantic to conference with Roosevelt, good thing the Germans didn't have any U-boats lurking about...
I suppose bombs dropping on London during the Blitz doesn't count does it, feeling real "safe" over there in Whitehall...
Just out of curiousity, from the Fall of France in July 1940 until Barbarossa in June 1941, just who exactly was doing the other 95% of the fighting?
And just who exactly would be our candidate for "Great Leader"?
syscom3
Pacific Historian
Do you have any factual information on that?
I agree Freebird, the post is disturbing, or humorous.
syscom3
Pacific Historian
As for best AF leader, I would nominate three individuals.
Hap Arnold who over saw the transformation of the prewar air force that was 3rd rate, into the preeminent AF that no other country could match. Part of his "greatness" was his ability to pick great subordinates for both staff and command. Nearly all of them were kept around for the post war USAF and help build that up.
Gen. Kenney who commanded the 5th (and later the FEAF) AF for doing the most with the least.
Gen LeMay for being a brilliant bomber tactician and after the war commanded the SAC.
Hap Arnold who over saw the transformation of the prewar air force that was 3rd rate, into the preeminent AF that no other country could match. Part of his "greatness" was his ability to pick great subordinates for both staff and command. Nearly all of them were kept around for the post war USAF and help build that up.
Gen. Kenney who commanded the 5th (and later the FEAF) AF for doing the most with the least.
Gen LeMay for being a brilliant bomber tactician and after the war commanded the SAC.
Freebird
Master Sergeant
And how much did the UK send to Russia? BE SURE TO INCLUDE TRANSPORTATION FEES!
Suppose the British blocade prevented the Nazis from obtaining vital war supplies, but caused no casualties, is that worth nothing?
I don't consider Eisenhower as one of the greatest leaders. He was unable to suppress the ego's of his subordinates like Patton and Montgomery eniough. This led to many extra casualties and disasters like Market Garden. He was a military diplomat. Not outspoken enough, so all parties would accept him.
- Thread starter
- #50
michaelmaltby
Colonel
"... His country got 70% of the total Lend-Lease aid and contributed 5% into the war efforts."
OK Stasoid - but if memory serves his country re-paid it's bills to the US. That's more than I can say for the other large LL receipiant.
And 5% of the war effort ... well senority has its advantages and - giving your 5% figure the benefit of the doubt (for just a moment) - neither the USSR or USA was involved in fighting the Allied cause in 1939. If I'm not mistaken, one of the two was actually on the opposite side in 1939 - and actively participating in the gobble-up. If your singing the Soviet Blues here Stasoid .... I'm not dancing. Stalin and the communists cooked up their own stew with Germany and then got burned when they ate it.
Churchill had his faults but he played his cards with both FDR and Stalin very well. He was providing military aid to the Soviet Union before America was and he provided Stalin with intelligence of both Barbarossa and much else ... which Stalin chose to ignore out of paranoia, until Kursk.
No Stasoid - if you have difficulties with Churchill as a leader then I think you probably have problems with democracy. Of course I stand willing to be corrected on that.
MM
OK Stasoid - but if memory serves his country re-paid it's bills to the US. That's more than I can say for the other large LL receipiant.
And 5% of the war effort ... well senority has its advantages and - giving your 5% figure the benefit of the doubt (for just a moment
) - neither the USSR or USA was involved in fighting the Allied cause in 1939. If I'm not mistaken, one of the two was actually on the opposite side in 1939 - and actively participating in the gobble-up. If your singing the Soviet Blues here Stasoid .... I'm not dancing. Stalin and the communists cooked up their own stew with Germany and then got burned when they ate it.Churchill had his faults but he played his cards with both FDR and Stalin very well. He was providing military aid to the Soviet Union before America was and he provided Stalin with intelligence of both Barbarossa and much else ... which Stalin chose to ignore out of paranoia, until Kursk.
No Stasoid - if you have difficulties with Churchill as a leader then I think you probably have problems with democracy. Of course I stand willing to be corrected on that.
MM
- Thread starter
- #51
michaelmaltby
Colonel
"... 75% of all Axis losses (excluding Japan) occurred on Eastern Front."
Sad but true. Are you proposing Stalin as your choice for Leaderership candidate, Stasoid?
MM
Sad but true. Are you proposing Stalin as your choice for Leaderership candidate, Stasoid?
MM
imalko
Chief Master Sergeant
Why is that sad? Axis were invaders, "bad guys" in WW2. So, to paraphrase you earlier statement Michael - Nazis cooked up their own stew with Stalin and the communists and then got burned when they ate it.
As for Churchill... No, I don't agree with all what Stasoid said about him, but we must admit that he made his share of mistakes in both world wars, like Gallipoli (1915) and Norway (1940) for example. However, he was a great statesman and leader never the less.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #53
michaelmaltby
Colonel
"Sad but true ...".
No issue with your point Imalko but reality can still be sad.
MM
No issue with your point Imalko but reality can still be sad.
MM
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
Those who denigrate Churchill for his military skills need to look at his whole resume. He was a visionary and aggresive about pushing his views, sometimes leading to not good results but he did have some active duty military experience, unlike many other political leaders. He was an early advocate for naval aviation as well as the dreadnought battleship. He certainly was right in viewing the American desire to make an early landing in France as premature. Sometimes the execution of schemes he advocated was faulty which was not his fault.
- Thread starter
- #55
michaelmaltby
Colonel
Not to simplify but ... Churchill was the product of a confident modern American woman and a confident modern aristocratic English father ... no ..?
He reflects the best and worst of both influences, I'd say. And when you think how it all came about ... Munich to Molotov-Ribbentrop to Pearl ... Churchill was the ONLY political figure ..... with a clear strident public, political voice ... who could have stood up and brought the British working masses to their feet with him ... for all his faults. And the moment the crisis was over ... well, we know what happened
MM
He reflects the best and worst of both influences, I'd say. And when you think how it all came about ... Munich to Molotov-Ribbentrop to Pearl ... Churchill was the ONLY political figure ..... with a clear strident public, political voice ... who could have stood up and brought the British working masses to their feet with him ... for all his faults. And the moment the crisis was over ... well, we know what happened
MM
- Thread starter
- #56
michaelmaltby
Colonel
Imalko .. "to paraphrase you earlier statement Michael - Nazis cooked up their own stew with Stalin and the communists and then got burned when they ate it." VERY TRUE - just proving that it take 2 to tango - or i it takes at least 2 to have a "conspiracy" and Molitov-Ribbentrop was the very essence of a political conspiracy between two DICTATORS ... or National Leaders if I'm being diplomatic
MM
MM
lingo
Airman 1st Class
- Thread starter
- #60
michaelmaltby
Colonel
"After reading up on FDR, I would say it was FDR who had more guts. Truman would not have played cat and mouse with the nazi's in the Atlantic in 1939-1941 like FDR did.".
I commented earlier that ".. by 1944 FDR was weakening". That is not a criticism of FDR Syscom, but a fact. Stalin knew FDR was dying and he damn well knew he wasn't.
I agree that in '39 - '41 FDR played chicken aka Reuben James but remember - sectors of the US public were pro-German and others were pro-isolationist. FDR could be cheaky with Hitler perhaps but only AFTER Joe Kennedy in London had been proved wrong.
FDR was - at heart - opposed to the notion of Commonwealth.
MM
I commented earlier that ".. by 1944 FDR was weakening". That is not a criticism of FDR Syscom, but a fact. Stalin knew FDR was dying and he damn well knew he wasn't.
I agree that in '39 - '41 FDR played chicken aka Reuben James but remember - sectors of the US public were pro-German and others were pro-isolationist. FDR could be cheaky with Hitler perhaps but only AFTER Joe Kennedy in London had been proved wrong.
FDR was - at heart - opposed to the notion of Commonwealth.
MM
