This has probably been done many times before but im afraid its likely that these topics will repeat themselves every now and again.
Would like to know people's opinion of the grand strategical decisions taken during the course of WW2. For example, was Churchills obsession with the Mediterranean, Middle East and Balkans theatre at blame for actually extending the war? Should he have gone with the Americans desire for the direct approach through France earlier on? Or was his memory of the WW1 Western Front still in the forefront of his mind?
How long would Roosevelt have waited if Pearl Harbour had not happened? Was his decision to go along with the British in delaying the invasion of France to go through Italy correct? Did he not really grasp the intentions of Stalin until it was too late?
Why did Stalin not believe British warnings that he was about to be attacked by the Third Reich in 1941? That Churchill was an anti-Bolshevik? Was he as deluded as Neville Chamberlain believing in Hitlers treaties? What if he had attacked pre-eminently, would it have made much of a difference?
Would like to know people's opinion of the grand strategical decisions taken during the course of WW2. For example, was Churchills obsession with the Mediterranean, Middle East and Balkans theatre at blame for actually extending the war? Should he have gone with the Americans desire for the direct approach through France earlier on? Or was his memory of the WW1 Western Front still in the forefront of his mind?
It's important to understand that Churchill already thought post-War, that is: he thought within the framework of the Cold War with the Soviet Union. Not only Western Europe had to be liberated, also as many territories as possible had to be included into the West's sphere of influence. Hence his 'obsession' with the Med, ME and Balkans.
How long would Roosevelt have waited if Pearl Harbour had not happened?
Perhaps until the Japanese attack on Singapore and the NEI? I don't know. But sooner or later US involvement was, of course, inevitable.
Why did Stalin not believe British warnings that he was about to be attacked by the Third Reich in 1941? That Churchill was an anti-Bolshevik? Was he as deluded as Neville Chamberlain believing in Hitlers treaties? What if he had attacked pre-eminently, would it have made much of a difference?
Knowing a little bit about Stalin, I believe he trusted nobody. That's why I don't think he did trust Hitler. Above all, I think the Soviets tried to win time to build up their army. I guess Stalin knew he would be betrayed, but he tried to let that happen as late as possible.
'Would like to know people's opinion of the grand strategical decisions taken during the course of WW2. For example, was Churchills obsession with the Mediterranean, Middle East and Balkans theatre at blame for actually extending the war? Should he have gone with the Americans desire for the direct approach through France earlier on? Or was his memory of the WW1 Western Front still in the forefront of his mind?'
I think the campaign throught Italy waa vital in taking resources away from the eastern front and also opening up a second front in France in time for normandy.I think that in 1943,the allies just were not capable of launching a succesful invasion of France.
'How long would Roosevelt have waited if Pearl Harbour had not happened?'
I dont think they would have entered.Britain and germany would have come to peaceful terms.
'Did he not really grasp the intentions of Stalin until it was too late?'
I think he saw stalin as a friend,like churchill and even when the warnings signs were there and old winson was warning him.He chose to remain freindly with stalin.Very understanable imo.
'Was he as deluded as Neville Chamberlain believing in Hitlers treaties? What if he had attacked pre-eminently, would it have made much of a difference?'
Imo,he didnt believe that hitler would be 'crazy' enough to attack Russia.If stalin had attacked first i think a repeeat off ww1 would have happened with catastrohpic losses on the russian side.Infact a german counter(invasion) could have been succesful.
I dont think Churchill started thinking post-war until 1942 when he knew he had the US on his side. its interesting you say that if Pearl Harbour had not happened Britain and Germany would have come to peace. I do not believe that this is the case if Hitler was still in charge. A lot of emphasis was placed in war planning that hitler would be ousted by senior military officers and that the occupied territories would rise up to throw off the german rule. incursions into Greece and Italy were designed to encourage both of these, however Churchill was very disappointed that neither occurred and an attempted coup only happened in 1944 by which time he had given up hope of removing hitler.
Aside from bombing german cities and commando raids there is not much britain could have done against mainland germany.We couldnt have launched overlord by ourselves.Not whilst we were fighting the japanese aswell.
I think the Germans/British would have come to terms and war between these two countries would have been stopped.FDR probably would have waited for this to happe to avoid sending troops.
From his fight against apeasement to the support he gave to De Gaulle and the free french from day one, Churchill was right in almost everything he decided.
For example, was Churchills obsession with the Mediterranean, Middle East and Balkans theatre at blame for actually extending the war?
Until 1943 there was almost no possibility for the Brits to fight Germans in Europe. If the Brits wanted to fight Germans, the Mediterranean was the only available play ground. Was a blessing the Germans ran to the rescue of the Italians. The Brits had to defend there asset in Egypte, Irak, Gibraltar and Malta anyway.
Should he have gone with the Americans desire for the direct approach through France earlier on? Or was his memory of the WW1 Western Front still in the forefront of his mind?
Churchill wanted to attack Germany from Italy through Austria. That is how historically Austria had always been attacked from the West. Churchill was right. The allies would probably have defeated Germany faster and had protected Eastern Europe from Russia at the same time.
General Juin and the Free French army supported this option.
That failed because:
- The Anglo-American armies that invaded Italy were too slow. They were led by incompetents. Only when they adopted the strategy proposed by the French army could they break the Gustav line near Monte Cassino but it was too late,
- Roosevelt supported a direct attack through France for political reason that aren't all clear,
- De Gaulle supported a direct attack through France for political reason as well: at some point he wished the war lasted the longer because time played for France: fighting France was stronger everyday and each day passing made France able to appear more like a victor and less like a passive liberated country.
Finally the allies took Roma the 6 june 1944 ..
How long would Roosevelt have waited if Pearl Harbour had not happened?
Roosevelt supported the entering of the US in the war with the allies very early. That's almost the only vision he got, for the rest he was pretty dumb. The problem was with the congress who wanted the US to stay neutral.
I think that without Pearl Harbour the congress would never have allowed Roosevelt to go to war.
Why did Stalin not believe British warnings that he was about to be attacked by the Third Reich in 1941? That Churchill was an anti-Bolshevik? Was he as deluded as Neville Chamberlain believing in Hitlers treaties? What if he had attacked pre-eminently, would it have made much of a difference?
Staline thought Hitler wouldn't have attacked Russia that early. But don't forget that he had massed quite impressive armies near the frontier. Too close to the frontier, his defensive strategy was even more crap than the Franco-British one in 1940. The elite of the Red Army had been beheaded anyway as there was big purges among officiers in 1938. We all know what saved the Red army.
This message has been edited by ultrarep on Jun 21, 2006 4:04 PM This message has been edited by ultrarep on Jun 21, 2006 3:42 PM This message has been edited by ultrarep on Jun 21, 2006 3:41 PM
yeah things slowed down in Italy, but do you think that if it had been given the resources later granted to the D-Day landings they could have pushed through eventually? Churchill seemed to think this was the way forward, if it was successful the war would most likely have been shorter and the post war cold war dividing lines very different. I did think that perhaps the Americans preferred the more direct france approach because they were less averse to casualties at this stage and also because they wanted Russia to take the full brunt for axis power for a little longer - however, the US had been in the war over a year by this time and Roosevelt didnt really see the post-war problems with Russia.
I think that without Pearl Harbour the congress would never have allowed Roosevelt to go to war.
Exactly. Roosevelt needed a Pearl Harbor in order to drag the nation to war overseas. Japan was being suffocated by the US for resources and knew she'd have to fight the US sooner or later. She was forced to attack if she was to have any chances of winning.
Isn't it suspicious that no USN CVs were at Pearl Harbor on Dec 7 1941?
Why suspicious? they were out on exercise. You have a conspiracy theory? I dont see the American leadership allowing the Japanese to sink most of their pacific fleet (but preserving the carriers) in order to have an excuse to go to war!
If they had Known about Pearl Harbour in advance, they could have just ambushed the japanese planes, and if not won the battle, at least do a lot of damage. They would still have an excuse to go to war, because it would still have been a japanese attack.
The US would have found it difficult to enter the war on Britains side without Pearl Harbour because of its vocal anti-imperealist stance. The last thing FDR could be seen to do was help protect the British Empire. Pearl Harbour and the Blitz of British citys helped change Americans views.
That may be so, but a faild attack on Pearl Harbour is still excuse enough to declare war, is it not? I also find it hard to believe that at that stage the US would risk the total destruction of its fleet, as the outcome of the war was by no means certian at that point. I think that if they wanted any excuse to enter the war, they would just have pulled another USS Maine incident, and lost perhaps one ship. As well, i don't see any evidence that there was knowlege. This is why, although I'm really into conspiracy theories, I have trouble buying this one.
I agree a failled attack would of been enough. I also cant buy into this conspiracy theory either. While the carriers were saved. the damage to the Fleet was still substantial.
thing is up until this point the US had been supporting Britain already, the fact the US didnt actually declare war was because of strong domestic opinion in America against intervention abroad. recall that memories of the first world war were in the minds of the americans just as it was in europe even if they experienced less of it.
the plain fact is that an attack by the japanese had been expected for a long time by the British in the Far East, hence belated upgrades to Singapore and the sending of ships. Australian and other units were being delivered to singapore and Malaya and moving into advanced positions well in advance of the attack by the Japanese.
the US was just as stupid in its approach to Japan as the USSR was to Germany in not expecting an attack. the 'day of ignomy' announced by FDR was designed to divert attention from the total cock up he and the US military made in being totally unprepared for a Japanese attack. Indeed the fact that US carriers were absent from pearl harbour meant little as their potential was not realised as yet.
