WW2 Allied Leadership

[syscom3]

No. You were the one who brought up 5%. You provide some facts and figures to back that guess up!

I was quoting stasoid.

 

[Waynos]

Churchill was pathetic in his anti-hitler rhetorics, sitting on the island out of reach, feeling safe. His country got 70% of the total Lend-Lease aid and contributed 5% into the war efforts.
What a great leader indeed.

That has to be the most ill-though out comment aI have ever seen on any website ever

 

[Amsel]

That has to be the most ill-though out comment aI have ever seen on any website ever

It is purely revisionist, and is typical neo-nazi propaganda.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

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.

I won't go as far as saying he was the best leader, but I am 100% sure he was the right man at the right time to lead England during the war. He gave hope to his people and in the end I believe he made the right decisions at the right time.

 

[Glider]

Personally I am waiting for Stasoid to supply his nominations, could be interesting.

Freebird and others have replied to his rather disturbing rants better than I ever could.

 

[Waynos]

Churchill could be very forceful and rash. Sometimes it was what was required and sometimes it led to bad mistakes. It should not however be seen as an overriding character trait. He did, for example, listen to Dowding when the Churchill of popular legend would have said 'to hell with you' and done exactly the wrong thing. He was much more complex than is given credit for. Luckily.

I never knew that the Battle of Britain, the Battle of the Atlantic, D-Day, North Africa, Burma and the rest was only 5% of the war effort. What have I missed all these years?

There is something a little bit disturbing about someone who calculates 'war effort' in terms of the number of dead bodies you can pile up. Or am I alone in that view?

 

[syscom3]

There is something a little bit disturbing about someone who calculates 'war effort' in terms of the number of dead bodies you can pile up. Or am I alone in that view?

It raised my eyebrows too.

 

[lingo]

Somehow you have a quote of Syscom saying something he didn't really say, if you go back and read the thread.

I apologise. I clearly did a hasty copy and paste job. Sorry pardon.

 

[renrich]

A good example of how losses in combat do not necessarily equate to the amount of effort in winning a war or campaign is look at the relatively few casualties the US incurred in the PTO versus the results. As far as mortality rate of US servicemen, that war was won "on the cheap."

 

[stasoid]

I never knew that the Battle of Britain, the Battle of the Atlantic, D-Day, North Africa, Burma and the rest was only 5% of the war effort. What have I missed all these years?

There is something a little bit disturbing about someone who calculates 'war effort' in terms of the number of dead bodies you can pile up. Or am I alone in that view?

Do you see another way of winning a Total War against Nazi Germany other then physically destroying its army's personell and equipment? To my understanding "war effort" can only be measured by the number of evemy troops your army has killed.
Let's take for example Battle Of Britain, Luftwaffe lost 1800 aircrafts out of 19.000 Germany produced that year. During the War Germany built 120.000 aircrafts that makes BoB accountable for 1.5% of total Luftwaffe losses. Same math can be applied to the ground forces operating in North Africa and Normandy.

Please, dont call me neo-nazi, revisionist or stalinist only because I disagree with that Churchill was the "greatest" leader. Just so you know, I dont think Stalin was either, my opinion of him is something far different from to be called " the greatest".

And as for Britain fighting alone untill 41', not entirely true - the soviets already fought Axis forces as early as Spanish Civil War in 1936, then little known Lake Hasan and Battle of Khalkin Gol in 1938-39.

 

[Glider]

Do you see another way of winning a Total War against Nazi Germany other then physically destroying its army's personell and equipment? To my understanding "war effort" can only be measured by the number of evemy troops your army has killed.

You could equally describe 'war effort' as being an economic measure as a percentage of the GNP, or the number of people you lost to the war. To base it on the number you kill is to my mind stupid. How do you factor in the extermination of the Jews, Gipsies, mentally impared, POW's kept in inhumane conditions civilians killed in air raids.

Let's take for example Battle Of Britain, Luftwaffe lost 1800 aircrafts out of 19.000 Germany produced that year. During the War Germany built 120.000 aircrafts that makes BoB accountable for 1.5% of total Luftwaffe losses. Same math can be applied to the ground forces operating in North Africa and Normandy.

This takes the biscuit. You could equally say that the BOB accounted for, what say 25% of the planes built during the BOB (guys that was a guess). What exactly does it prove.

Please, dont call me neo-nazi, revisionist or stalinist only because I disagree with that Churchill was the "greatest" leader.

I will happily call you a revisionist if you base your effectiveness on a body count.

Just so you know, I dont think Stalin was either, my opinion of him is something far different from to be called " the greatest".

We are still waiting for who you think was the best.
PS Roosevelt get my vote.

And as for Britain fighting alone untill 41', not entirely true - the soviets already fought Axis forces as early as Spanish Civil War in 1936, then little known Lake Hasan and Battle of Khalkin Gol in 1938-39.

I must have missed the bit aout the UK and USA taking on Spain during the war and the UK taking sides in the Spanish Civil War. Was this something to do with the Spanish Armada or are my dates out?

Small point Khalkin Gol was during the Japanese Russian conflict in the Far East, that you know. The Axis Alliance wasn't signed until 1940 so your point doesn't stand

 

[Freebird]

Do you see another way of winning a Total War against Nazi Germany other then physically destroying its army's personell and equipment?

Yes, by eliminating the means and resources for the enemy to wage war.

To my understanding "war effort" can only be measured by the number of evemy troops your army has killed.

It would seem to be a very limited understanding of the concept.
Would it have been better to refuse the Italian surrender? {and subsequent joining of the allied cause} By refusing to allow the Italians to join the Allied cause, we could have kept attacking them, thereby boosting the "body count" and achieving a much greater victory...

Let's take for example Battle Of Britain, Luftwaffe lost 1800 aircrafts out of 19.000 Germany produced that year. During the War Germany built 120.000 aircrafts that makes BoB accountable for 1.5% of total Luftwaffe losses.

Your math is screwy, you are comparing losses to total production. How many German aircraft were destroyed in combat, and what % did each of the big three cause? How about what % of German U-boats did each of the Allies cause?

Please, dont call me neo-nazi, revisionist or stalinist only because I disagree with that Churchill was the "greatest" leader. Just so you know, I dont think Stalin was either, my opinion of him is something far different from to be called " the greatest".

Fair enough, if you don't have a great opinion of Churchill that's fine.

And as for Britain fighting alone untill 41', not entirely true - the soviets already fought Axis forces as early as Spanish Civil War in 1936, then little known Lake Hasan and Battle of Khalkin Gol in 1938-39.

And just exactly how many Nazi soldiers/airmen did the Soviets kill in 38/39?

 

[Waynos]

Do you see another way of winning a Total War against Nazi Germany other then physically destroying its army's personell and equipment? To my understanding "war effort" can only be measured by the number of evemy troops your army has killed.

Do you really beieve that, or is it a wind up?

The 'war effort' was provided across the allies from all walks of life as well as the military and much of the most important war effort came from the workers in the factories and down the mines who never killed anybody. Your view is just too simplistic for words.

So the total number of German aircraft shot down in the BoB was only a small percentage of the total built over 6 years. So was the percentage of British aircraft shot down only a tiny percentage too. Could it possibly have been any other way? Was not the real point of the 'war effort' at this stage that Great Britain was the *only* nation state taking on Germany militarily, while Russia sat and watched, and through this victory, fought for when suing for peace was seen as the only 'sensible' option generally, enabled the eventual successful conclusion of the war for the allies? Or do you think that British capitualtion in 1940 would have made no ultimate difference? For you are the building blocks of victory so worthless that only the final scores count?

 

[stasoid]

You could equally describe 'war effort' as being an economic measure as a percentage of the GNP, or the number of people you lost to the war. To base it on the number you kill is to my mind stupid. How do you factor in the extermination of the Jews, Gipsies, mentally impared, POW's kept in inhumane conditions civilians killed in air raids

Read my post, I'm talking about army losses.


We are still waiting for who you think was the best.
PS Roosevelt get my vote.

Roosevelt was a moral person and a wise man, he gets my vote too.


And just exactly how many Nazi soldiers/airmen did the Soviets kill in 38/39?

SU supplied 800 planes, 350 tanks an 1500 artillery pieces to Republican Spain. This equipment was mostly operated by soviet "advisers". How many evemy casualties they inflicted is unknown as for the USSR this couldnt be made public at the time.

Battle oh Khalkhin Gol 60.000 Japanise KIA/WIA (soviet claim).


Great Britain was the *only* nation state taking on Germany militarily, while Russia sat and watched, and through this victory, fought for when suing for peace was seen as the only 'sensible' option generally, enabled the eventual successful conclusion of the war for the allies?

I guess the soviets were busy preparing for the Winter War with Finland. At that time everyone cared about defense of his own counry first. All Treaties had already been signed and war declared. Nothing could've changed the course of the war. It was too late, unfortunately. I dont think it was Russia's fault that England end up fighting Germany on its own. All soviet pre-war attempts to sign Collective Security with France and Great Britain failed as you know. UK signed Munich Treaty and didnt make a move to stop Germany's agression on Poland in 39, so...

 

[michaelmaltby]

Personally, Stasoid, I'm one of those peculiar people who actually believe that if Hitler hadn't attacked Stalin in summer '41, Stalin would have attacked Hitler by October. [No, I'm not buying the Icebreaker theory lock-stock and barrel] I know no other way to explain Soviet losses in the first 7-10 days of Barbarossa -- the Soviets were in offense staging positions with no orders or planning to defend. Stalin did not believe Churchill's "tip" about Barbarossa - date and time. Stalin didn't believe Churchill because: (1) He was paranoid and believed Churchill was trying to suck him in (2) His intelligence showed that Hitler was NOT making plans for a winter war (no buying up of sheep skins or other useful warm materials. (3) Stalin believed in any case that he would spring his offense before Hitler -- and separate Hitler from Romanian OIL and other sources.

So all your rationalizing about Soviet casualties, the Spanish War and Mongolia May-Sept '39 is all beside the point. We don't count Canadian, British, American, UK volunteers in Spain as WW2 casualties -- no exceptions for the Soviets, Stazoid.

FDR was "a very moral leader" - what the hell does that mean -- selling Eastern Europe out post '45 was "moral" ..?

MM

 

[BombTaxi]

stasoid, I think you need to go back and read your history my friend. The inescapable lesson of every major conflict since at least 1798 is this: it is far more effective to deny your enemy the means of raising and equipping armies than it is to try and defeat thiose armies in the field. That means blockade or aerial bombardment. A few examples:

The Royal Navy did it to Bonaparte between 1798 and 1815, then did it again to Kaiser Bill 1914-18. Bill very nearly did it to the UK in 1917, and Hitler tried again the North Atlantic 1939-45.

The USA did it to the CSA 1861-1865, and the 8th AF and Bomber Command did it to Hitler 1939-45.

Every one of those campaigns was designed not to kill troops in combat, but to prevent them from ever reaching comabat for want of training and/or equipment. That is how modern war is ultimately won. You starve your enemy then deliver a killing blow when he is on his knees. Blockade duty is never glamourous and only rarely glorious. But it decides wars - of that there can be no doubt.

 

[Waynos]

[Read my post, I'm talking about army losses.

No, you quite specifically said war effort.

I guess the soviets were busy preparing for the Winter War with Finland.

Ah yes the threat of mighty Finland, so much easier than fighting Germans, they thought.

Nothing could've changed the course of the war.

How do you mean? If Britain did not fight in 1940 nothing would have changed?

I dont think it was Russia's fault that England end up fighting Germany on its own. All soviet pre-war attempts to sign Collective Security with France and Great Britain failed as you know.

Interesting choice of phrase there, makes it sound like Russia were trying. Was it not Russias fault that while the French and British delegates were in Moscow to sign a treaty against Germany, Russia, on 23rd August 1939, signed the non aggression pact with Hitler that effectively gave permission for the invasion of Poland? I think Russia might have been quite culpable there, just as we ourselves were the year before.

UK signed Munich Treaty and didnt make a move to stop Germany's agression on Poland in 39, so...

But you do know that it was Hitlers aggression on Polan in 1939 that was the reason Britain declared war on Germany Yes? And how did Russia react to this aggression? Oh yes, they piled in too, on the wrong side.

 

[stasoid]

stasoid, I think you need to go back and read your history my friend. The inescapable lesson of every major conflict since at least 1798 is this: it is far more effective to deny your enemy the means of raising and equipping armies than it is to try and defeat thiose armies in the field. That means blockade or aerial bombardment. A few examples:

The Royal Navy did it to Bonaparte between 1798 and 1815, then did it again to Kaiser Bill 1914-18. Bill very nearly did it to the UK in 1917, and Hitler tried again the North Atlantic 1939-45.

The USA did it to the CSA 1861-1865, and the 8th AF and Bomber Command did it to Hitler 1939-45.

Every one of those campaigns was designed not to kill troops in combat, but to prevent them from ever reaching comabat for want of training and/or equipment. That is how modern war is ultimately won. You starve your enemy then deliver a killing blow when he is on his knees. Blockade duty is never glamourous and only rarely glorious. But it decides wars - of that there can be no doubt.

Dont think that would work with Nazi Germany. Fanatical regime fought till the last man was out of ammo as you know from history.

For how long you were going to "blockade" them? For 10? 20 years? In a few years they would've built ICBMs and nukes, you wouldnt have place on Earth to hide.

 

[stasoid]

Ah yes the threat of mighty Finland, so much easier than fighting Germans, they thought.

Finland hadnt decided which side to take yet by 1940, looked leaning towards the Axis Powers. Correct me if I'm wrong on this. Winter War is a shamefull page of Russia's history anyways.

 

[stasoid]

Interesting choice of phrase there, makes it sound like Russia were trying. Was it not Russias fault that while the French and British delegates were in Moscow to sign a treaty against Germany, Russia, on 23rd August 1939, signed the non aggression pact with Hitler that effectively gave permission for the invasion of Poland? I think Russia might have been quite culpable there, just as we ourselves were the year before.

The soviets made multiple attempts to convince Great Britain and France to sign Collective Security pact against possible agression on Poland from Germany, instead France and UK signed Munich Treaty in 1938 giving Hitler a green light to go Ost.

If this is new to you, here is a quick note from Wiki:

The most active and articulate exponent of collective security during the immediate pre-war years was the Soviet foreign minister Maxim Litvinov, but after the Munich Agreement in September 1938 and Western passivity in the face of German occupation of the remainder of Czechoslovakia in March 1939 it was shown that the Western Powers were not prepared to engage in collective security against aggression by the Axis Powers together with the Soviet Union, Soviet foreign policy was revised and Litvinov was replaced as foreign minister in early May 1939, in order to facilitate the negotiations that led to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact with Germany, signed by Litvinov's successor, Vyacheslav Molotov, on August 23 of that year. The war in Europe broke out a week later, with the German invasion of Poland on September 1.

Collective security - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia