Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 115 comments are related to the topic:
Crane Dipping was bought for Churchill
Crane Dipping was bought for Churchill
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 115
|
By:
The USA wanted to invade France in 1943
Maybe some generals did, but there wasn't widespread support within the US military for it. The navy, for one, was opposed. I think it is generally accepted that a 1943 cross-channel invasion stood much less chance of success, a shortage of available troops, intelligence, distractions elsewhere etc Making sure not to err on the side of risk was the ultimate objective and the correct course of action |
|
By:
Speeches don't win wars.
I don't recall Stalin being quoted after he'd broken the back of the German army. |
|
By:
Stalin quote "The death of millions is a statistic"
|
|
By:
His funeral's on the Parliament channel right now
|
|
By:
The TV schedule for 30 January 1965 was only slightly
affected by the coverage of the funeral. In the morning, the broadcast replaced an edition of 'The Science of Man' about evolution and a German instruction programme called 'Komm Mit!' (which translates as 'Come Here!'). In the evening, 'Juke Box Jury', 'Doctor Who' and 'Dixon of Dock Green' were transmitted almost as planned, though western series 'Temple Houston' was dropped to make room for a one-hour edited compilation of the funeral later that night. bbc.co.uk |
|
By:
The Leopard • January 30, 2015 10:45 AM GMT
USA military command or Ebulgery off the chit chat forum....hmmmm, who to pick? That's a tough one Leopard, but me of course is the correct answer  I watch a lot of documentaries, including on Churchill. Despite all his speeches, he did not have much faith in our boys against the Germans. Of course if would have been harder in 1943, we did not have control of the air as we in 1944, I also suspect Germans were stronger as well. I am saying this is what Historians discuss, although maybe this is not the appropriate moment Dr Crippen • January 30, 2015 11:20 AM GMT Speeches don't win wars. I don't recall Stalin being quoted afte rhe'd broken the back of the German army. He made plenty to the Russians believe me, Fight for Mother Russia, he downplayed communism a bit He also had machine guns placed behind his own troops advancing to make sure they did. |
|
By:
Dockers didn't like working Monday to Friday, never mind Saturday.
|
|
By:
I seem to remember they spent a lot of time on strike
spellingandgrammer |
|
By:
History like gambling is always easier in hindsight
Some disputed Churchill's decision to fight in N.Africa...but the consensus now he was right Italy this is still under dispute by Historians Most interesting quote I read was a captured German General in Italy "Next time you invade Italy why not start at the top not the bottom" and he was right We landed in the north of Italy, all Germans troops to the south must withdraw, or risk being cut off So what was the point of us slugging it all the way up from the bottom I think the reason was, Churchill wanted to condition our troops and USA troops to fighting the Germans an expensive way of doing it However we have no way of knowing if a D Day landing would succeeded in 1943, so Churchill may well have been right It is 'What if' history |
|
By:
The Leopard
There was a historian on Newsnight last night who said that Churchill delayed the D-Day landings by about a year which may have resulted in 10 million more deaths as it prolonged the war. Why do you persist on posting this type of cr4p? One historian trying to stand out from the crowd. Churchill was without a doubt the greatest Briton of the 20th century. |
|
By:
Can't see that blocked poster.....probably the Establishment lap-dog, Aka-loser s*cking up again to the men with the shiney buttons
|
|
By:
He did not like your opening post Leopard......perhaps I should post it
unless you have blocked me too I consider the historian was wrong to say what he did particularly on the anniversary of Churchill's death... This is a mute point he is arguing...to accuse Churchill of the possible death of 10 million people...this is far too strong Churchill made a decision he thought was best. This does make him a mass murderer. |
|
By:
How ready would Britain and the US have been in 1943?
How many more axis troops would there have been that weren't now dead on the Eastern front? D-Day was NOT as sure thing, the allies knew there was a possibility it might fail. To say that if they'd launched what as incredibly large and complex and dangerous operation an entire year earlier, that it wouldn't have been a complete disaster, and that by not doing it Churchill was at fault in some way, really ... It's classic smartass revisionism after the fact. The only qualification required to be a historian is to say you're a historian, doesn't mean you aren't a complete tw*t! Invading Italy from the top, where are your supply lines going to come from? You're going to stick an invading army at the top of a long thin peninsula and have to resupply it by sea from say Africa, running the gauntlet of the Luftwaffe and Italian air force for 100s of miles? Resupplying a small force at Malta was hard enough. The people cut off and captured may very well have been the allies. I'm sure they considered their options! |
|
By:
That docker made the documentary for me
.Respect to Churchill but I have never been a fan. |
|
By:
I thought invading Italy from the top was a good idea
 I do not think we expected it would take us so long. The Germans even disagreed over whether Italy was worth defending, Rommel did not think so Still D Day in 1943 would have been much harder, we do not know it would have succeeded To judge this we must look it at from the position of early 1943, how did it look then, not now |
|
By:
There must have been reasons for it. I suppose Africa and the med were crucial to the UK for getting oil and communicating with the eastern Med and further on. As long as Italy was there as a massive aircraft and ship launcher that was threatened. Maybe they too thought the Germans wouldn't defend it?
If you think about the mediteranean and how hard it would be to support a big force at the top of Italy across a large distance while the rest of Italy and France and Corsica whatever could be used to attack you, and your land forces are also getting attacked from both sides - I wouldn't fancy the chances! |
|
By:
Well we landed at Anzio
probably good reasons as you say I still like my idea |
|
By:
Field Marshall Ebulgery
|
|
By:
You can be a good War General but a bad politician a good footballer but thick as a plank
a good narrator but an awful lover .Right time right place but it was the people of this country who won the war not the politicians... |
|
By:
Indeed ! but one million of those people stood in the street to pay
tribute to a politician. |
|
By:
Dr Crippen Speeches don't win wars. Churchill's speeches certainly helped. |
|
By:
^In what way?
Half the country hated him because he was a Tory. They kicked him out of office in first election that was held after the war. The programme makers have been leading an awful lot of people up the garden path about Churchill and his inspiring speeches. It's all good stuff and just part of the illusion that seeks to glamorise war. Like kids being taught at school that the British beat the Germans. Hardly ever mentioning the forces that Russia and America pitched against Germany which really beat them. Russia in particular. |
|
By:
They kicked him out of office in first election that was held after the war.
Before someone picks me up on that. They gave him the thumbs down and didn't elect his Tory party after the war. |
|
By:
Yes I think that was because people were hoping to build a better world, a more socialist society
It was not necessarily a rejection of Churchill I do not think we succeeded we seem to be heading back to the same old world |
|
By:
It's all good stuff and just part of the illusion that seeks to glamorise war.
I do not think this is about glamorising war. War is part of human nature, it is the way settle our differences we will never escape it. Also people are quite happy to demand protection if they think this country is threatened do they not? So people are incredibly hypocritical about this We must acknowledge the people who have protected us |
|
By:
I am not having a go at you Dr Crippen, it is just part of the discussion
|
|
By:
The major banking families backed both sides during the war. The longer it went on, the bigger the debt became.
Britain did not have the firepower to fight back before the battle of Britain. Germany had been practicing since the Spanish civil war. Hitler admired Britain and had no intention of invading it, but was talked out of this by his generals. Hitler wanted Russia, but the timing was wrong, winter looming and fighting on 2 fronts. His generals were against invading Russia and wanted to concentrate on western Europe. Churchill was an alleged paedophile and satanic child murderer. |
|
By:
Churchill was an alleged paedophile and satanic child murderer.
 |
|
By:
You got a link twonky? Or did you just make that up?
|
|
By:
I don't think I've ever read a post by Twonky that wasn't
1. A Lie 2. A Troll 3. Had a conspiracy theory in it. People having a go at Churchill are saying more about themselves than Churchill really, and know nothign about the personal battles he fought to get the result we got. Could you imagine the country rallying behind the great war leader "Ed Miliband"? To try and say the person who leads a country has no effect, as people seem to trying to say above, is just mind boggling considering the context where ww2 was all about fighting a country driven by another Leader, Mr A Hitler. Woudl you say his speeches and actions and decisions had no effect on Germany policy? |
|
By:
"Like kids being taught at school that the British beat the Germans.
Hardly ever mentioning the forces that Russia and America pitched against Germany which really beat them. " And how many kids leave school thinking Germany started ww2 single handed without knowing that Germany and Russia had agreed to carve up Poland beforehand, and after Germany invaded Poland from the West, Russia invaded from the East? It's amazing how much that is played down. Great fighters for freedom Russia were not. |
|
By:
Perhaps not just checking
But we must be grateful to Russia whether we like it or not, because the enemy of my enemy is my friend The German armies were broken in Russia WWI was decided in the West, WW2 the East. |
|
By:
The division of Poland was a clever ruse by the Germans, it saved them fighting on two fronts
They were able to deal with France and Britain without worrying about their backs Hitler hated Stalin, he always wanted Russia |
|
By:
Oh I agree with that ebulGery, but that's observing facts, not saying they are in any way good guys.
And if Britain had folded, and Germany didn't have to try to defend the western Europe or Italy or Africa or defend from the air or have its factories and communications destroyed regularly, and instead be able to turn its full might with its allies and unimpeded war production on Russia, there's a good chance they'd have won there I think. So again, Churchill and Britain played a very major part. |
|
By:
I totally agree Just Checking
|
|
By:
It's a big agreement party! what a nice end of January Chit Chat miracle :)
|
|
By:
Btw, although Britain did stand alone in Europe, remember that it was always Churchill's plan to engage the United States, and he was open about this. From his first speech as Prime Minister:
" ...We shall not flag nor fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France and on the seas and oceans; we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air. We shall defend our island whatever the cost may be; we shall fight on beaches, landing grounds, in fields, in streets and on the hills. We shall never surrender and even if, which I do not for the moment believe, this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, will carry on the struggle until in God's good time the New World with all its power and might, sets forth to the liberation and rescue of the Old." |
|
By:
just checkingPerhaps not quite, I do not think Stalin would have invaded Poland by himself. I think he was offered half by the Germans who said they were invading anyway. If the Germans had just taken all Poland that would have alarmed Stalin. It was to give him a false sense of security while Hitler dealt with the West...I do not think Hitler was ever going to stop at half Poland he wanted, 'Lebensraum' which meant Russia and he hated communists. |
|
By:
Surprised that nobody mentioned the Dardanelles Campaign, or Norway,
|
|
By:
Surprised that nobody mentioned the Dardanelles Campaign, or Norway,
Yes, Churchill was not a great military strategist, or even a mediocre one. As someone-or-other once said of Churchill, he was usually wrong, but the one time it really mattered, he was right. |