Winston Churchill wasn't a warmonger

[removeduser_4536284751384]

Why is it that if I see someone being raped and I save them, I am a hero. If I don't save people will think I'm a coward and a prick.

Yet if a leader decides that a crazed maniac in another country who is killing his own people and wants to take over the world, and is actually succeeding in that goal, needs to be removed, they are a warmonger?

I actually think it's a disgrace Operation Unthinkable wasn't carried out before the USSR got nukes. They left a huge portion of the world's population to be persecuted, and are called warmongers?

If I thought about saving someone from being raped, but in hte end didn't, why the would I be labelled to aggressive?

[Koelkastmagneet]

Why is it that if I see someone being raped and I save them, I am a hero. If I don't save people will think I'm a coward and a prick.

Yet if a leader decides that a crazed maniac in another country who is killing his own people and wants to take over the world, and is actually succeeding in that goal, needs to be removed, they are a warmonger?

I actually think it's a disgrace Operation Unthinkable wasn't carried out before the USSR got nukes. They left a huge portion of the world's population to be persecuted, and are called warmongers?

If I thought about saving someone from being raped, but in hte end didn't, why the would I be labelled to aggressive?

You do know that there was no actual practical way to make operation Unthinkable succeed right?

[pannonian]

Also, easy on the tone, if you want the thread to stay open.

[cottontail]

The Soviets had the largest, most powerful army in the entire world. A war with them would not have led Britain into Moscow but the Russians into Paris.

As for Winston, most people believe that while he probably was a more war oriented minister ( as shown by his performance after peace broke out) nobody I know accuses him of warmongering. He just performed well in a war enviroment. No need to get angry about it

[lordoftheT]

Not to mention that if I remember right the US wouldn't have another atomic bomb ready for another couple of months.

[Mangalore]

Not to mention that if I remember right the US wouldn't have another atomic bomb ready for another couple of months.

And the continuation of war with a former ally would have been difficult to sell to the electorate after all enemies were vanquished.

[Phier]

Once Japan fell there would have been nothing that could have stopped us if we had invaded the USSR. The US had a massive navy, and insane airpower, and throw on the atomic bomb with a cherry on top.

Its all speculative history, and the WORLD was war weary, but from a more 'RTS' style argument it was very plausible.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

Once Japan fell there would have been nothing that could have stopped us if we had invaded the USSR. The US had a massive navy, and insane airpower, and throw on the atomic bomb with a cherry on top.

Its all speculative history, and the WORLD was war weary, but from a more 'RTS' style argument it was very plausible.

apart from the fact the russian army was more than ten times the size of the US army and qualitively superior

[Farnan]

apart from the fact the russian army was more than ten times the size of the US army and qualitively superior

10 times?

How about maybe 2.5 times.

And Qualitatively superior depends on who you ask.

[Dr. Croccer]

Once Japan fell there would have been nothing that could have stopped us if we had invaded the USSR. The US had a massive navy, and insane airpower

As did the Soviets have comparable forces.

and throw on the atomic bomb with a cherry on top. .

Nukes wouldn't have been that useful though. The Soviets had hidden their industry and I doubt that terrorizing the population would would.

Operation Unthinkable would just have been an inane slugmatch between the USSR and the Allies which no-one would've won.

[Lysimachus]

Once Japan fell there would have been nothing that could have stopped us if we had invaded the USSR. The US had a massive navy, and insane airpower, and throw on the atomic bomb with a cherry on top.

I'd beg to differ. By 1944, all of the nations participating in the conflict were scraping the barrel for manpower and a war between the Allies and the Soviet superstate would simply be a colossal disaster for both sides. The Soviets would have to advance quickly before Allied blockade and the poor economic state of their country got the better of themselves which would result in massive offensives revolved around breaking the Allied troops in Germany, Austria, Italy and the Balkans and they would possibly end up seizing all of Europe and unleashing communist regime on all of the puppet states that would be formed in the aftermath.

[Azog 150]

I don't think anyone calls Churchill a warmonger (That I have heard anyway)

However, no one wanted the war to go on any longer then it had too. At the end of the war, Britain was in financial ruin and the people were sick and weary (They had been at war for 6 years- 5 of those years they had been bombed. 7-9 million were homeless, half a million were dead, another million were wounded). It just wouldn't have been possible to sell it to the general public. A war with the USSR would have been incredibly costly, and there was certainly no guarentee of victory. There was just no sense in dragging the war on (And there is a good chance that a war with the USSR would have been even more brutal and costly then the war with Nazi Germany).

[Jingles]

Well, really I don't think the allies could've faced off with the USSR for long, judging by the military performance of the USSR and the Allies during the war. However, by this point, the United States had the bomb, so anything could've happened.

And I think the 'warmongering' probably refers more to Churchill's attitude towards the outbreak of WW1.

[Farnan]

Well, really I don't think the allies could've faced off with the USSR for long, judging by the military performance of the USSR and the Allies during the war. However, by this point, the United States had the bomb, so anything could've happened.

And I think the 'warmongering' probably refers more to Churchill's attitude towards the outbreak of WW1.

It would have been more bloody than WWII...

But assuming half the Germans agreed to fight alongside the Allies, it would put numbers about even. The Soviets had longer supply lines and were in hostile territory with guerrillas in their rear. I think the Allies could have pushed to Russia but not passed the Russian border.

The French, UK, US, Free Polish, Italian Co-belligerent Army, German, Dutch and Belgian military would have added up to a large force.

[Lysimachus]

Well, really I don't think the allies could've faced off with the USSR for long, judging by the military performance of the USSR and the Allies during the war. However, by this point, the United States had the bomb, so anything could've happened.

And I think the 'warmongering' probably refers more to Churchill's attitude towards the outbreak of WW1.

So you're saying the Soviet performance was good? At the start, it was astonishlingly bad to be blunt about it. Then they gradually improved, and the Allied lend-lease was able to save the Soviet situation from getting worse. Then at Stalingrad, they relied on Hitler's refusal to withdraw from the symbolic city by performing encircling manouvres in the vast steppes of Eastern Ukraine and due to his constant bone-headed actions were gradually able to batter down the German army all the way until June '44. With Operation Bagration, they destroyed an already weakened Army Group Centre, trapped Army Group North in Courland and forced Army Group South in to the Balkans which would eventually surrender there. Their performance played much a part as the German weaknesses did and by the end of the war, even though they were winning the Soviet army was quite a rabble as proven by their haphazard advance to Berlin which would have posed a gigantic target if the Germans had any of their airforce available.

The Allies, under Eisenhower however relied on the "Broad Front" strategy which revolved around posing a continuous line against their opponent regardless of how thin that made their lines, rather than the German doctrine which was more flexible and not as susceptible to overextending themselves like that (to be honest, they couldn't afford to do that anyway). The Allied doctrine, since it stretched troops thin relied a lot on replacements to fill their already sparsely positioned divisions.

Overall, I feel that the Soviets and the Allies would have needed to adapt to the situation quite quickly and more so the U.S.S.R. Both sides became overextended in WWII because when they reached Germany it simply became a huge land grab for as much of it as possible to give them more power in the peace talks and if it came to war after the conflict then they would need to seriously redeploy their forces. Even though the Soviets might have gotten the upper hand at the start, they were already overextended and the Allies would simply get pushed closer to their own supply lines which would allow them to do a fighting withdrawal to allow themselves to regroup in the rear and then to prepare an offensive to push their adversaries out of the land they had lost and to pursue them to a limited extent (getting all the way in to Russia would be absurd).

A large force indeed, albeit without the unity of command of the extent enjoyed by the Red Army.

Which was of course plagued by the fact that Stalin enjoyed letting his commanders compete with one another and didn't like any of them getting too much attention over him which would mean that he would redistribute great commanders to more unimportant sectors. Perhaps the command in the Red Army was better, but it was fueled by Stalin's personal agendas to a certain extent.

[pannonian]

The Allies, under Eisenhower however relied on the "Broad Front" strategy which revolved around posing a continuous line against their opponent regardless of how thin that made their lines, rather than the German doctrine which was more flexible and not as susceptible to overextending themselves like that (to be honest, they couldn't afford to do that anyway). The Allied doctrine, since it stretched troops thin relied a lot on replacements to fill their already sparsely positioned divisions.

"Broad Front" was pushing all along the front, rather than concentrating on strategic point. Market Garden is an example of the opposite of Broad Front. Hurtgen (IIRC) is an example of an operation deemed necessary by the Broad Front doctrine.

Which was of course plagued by the fact that Stalin enjoyed letting his commanders compete with one another and didn't like any of them getting too much attention over him which would mean that he would redistribute great commanders to more unimportant sectors. Perhaps the command in the Red Army was better, but it was fueled by Stalin's personal agendas to a certain extent.

Well, he did have a load of great commanders to throw around. Zhukov, Koniev, Rokossovsky, Vasilevsky, Vatutin, Chernyakovsky, Malinovsky, and others.

[Lysimachus]

I see your Patton and Alsace (which I might dispute if I had a little more resource) and raise you a Roberts and Scheldt.

Link(s) please, I need to know what you're on about before I question it

"Broad Front" was pushing all along the front, rather than concentrating on strategic point. Market Garden is an example of the opposite of Broad Front. Hurtgen (IIRC) is an example of an operation deemed necessary by the Broad Front doctrine.

But of course, as we know the moment they broke the Broad Front with the Market Garden operation, things went wrong. One could say that meant that the Allies pursuing an alternative to it was a bad idea, but in my opinion it was because the operation was too ambitious. The Allies had the material. Tanks, trucks, halftracks and men to boot but with the Broad Front they made their Armoured Division's mobility practically nil by not giving them more freedom of movement. Also, don't you think the charade at Hürtgen should have been avoided altogether? From what i've read it was just a complete disaster.

Well, he did have a load of great commanders to throw around. Zhukov, Koniev, Rokossovsky, Vasilevsky, Vatutin, Chernyakovsky, Malinovsky, and others.

Chernyakovsky died in East Prussia, January 1945

And you can't really keep switching round your commanders, this isn't exactly Hearts of Iron II we're on about considering the general needs to first arrive at the designated spot, set themselves up and then assume control of the situation.

[motiv-8]

Link(s) please, I need to know what you're on about before I question it

Of course, I am referring to the failure of Major-General George Roberts, CO 11th Armoured, to capture and clear the Scheldt Estuary of German forces, which were in disarray, after capturing the large port of Antwerp intact in the first week of September, 1944. This failure made the use of Antwerp impossible for weeks, until the Sheldt was finally cleared by the First Cdn Army after a month of fighting throughout October and early November. Quick and effective use of Antwerp's port could have helped alleviate much of the supply trouble faced by the Allies in Western Europe during that autumn and into winter.

[motiv-8]

The French, UK, US, Free Polish, Italian Co-belligerent Army, German, Dutch and Belgian military would have added up to a large force.

A large force indeed, albeit without the unity of command of the extent enjoyed by the Red Army.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

A large force indeed, albeit without the unity of command of the extent enjoyed by the Red Army.

in total a force of less than 150 divisions

the german army was the best in world at the time and failed against the 390 soviet divisions at the start of the war with about 150 of their own

no way is that gonna take 690 divisions.