Revisiting History: The Unlikely Campaign to Vilify Winston Churchill

[Cameroni]

1 hour ago, Bkk Brian said:

But your just an anonymous internet poster, I go for opinions from those in the know a little more.

 

Nikita Khrushchev

"If the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war," he wrote in his memoirs. "One-on-one against Hitler's Germany, we would not have withstood its onslaught and would have lost the war. No one talks about this officially"

https://www.rferl.org/a/did-us-lend-lease-aid-tip-the-balance-in-soviet-fight-against-nazi-germany/30599486.html

 

Krushchev had reason to ingratiate himself with Western leaders. Rather than his opinion a detailed look at Soviet production figures will suffice to show that Lend Lease was not a decisive factor, whereas Soviet production was.

[Bkk Brian]

15 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Krushchev had reason to ingratiate himself with Western leaders. Rather than his opinion a detailed look at Soviet production figures will suffice to show that Lend Lease was not a decisive factor, whereas Soviet production was.

A detailed read of the article that backs up his opinion would suffice far better.

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, Cameroni said:

 

Krushchev had reason to ingratiate himself with Western leaders. Rather than his opinion a detailed look at Soviet production figures will suffice to show that Lend Lease was not a decisive factor, whereas Soviet production was.

The figure on Transport vehicles which I supplied before is enough to give your claim the lie. As is the fact that over a third of their explosives were supplied by the USA. And I haven't done yet into the statistics of food supply, but if you like I will. And impugning Kruschev's words based on his alleged desire to ingratiate himself with Western leaders is quite tendentious. Especially, as you're the party that repeatedly alleges that Hitler negotiated in good faith despite his long history of betrayals.

[Bkk Brian]

On the whole the following conclusion can be drawn: that without these Western shipments under Lend-Lease the Soviet Union not only would not have been able to win the Great Patriotic War, it would not have been able even to oppose the German invaders, since it could not itself produce sufficient quantities of arms and military equipment or adequate supplies of fuel and ammunition. The Soviet authorities were well aware of this dependency on Lend-Lease. Thus, Stalin told Harry Hopkins [FDR's emissary to Moscow in July 1941] that the U.S.S.R. could not match Germany's might as an occupier of Europe and its resources.

[Cameroni]

9 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

On the whole the following conclusion can be drawn: that without these Western shipments under Lend-Lease the Soviet Union not only would not have been able to win the Great Patriotic War, it would not have been able even to oppose the German invaders, since it could not itself produce sufficient quantities of arms and military equipment or adequate supplies of fuel and ammunition. The Soviet authorities were well aware of this dependency on Lend-Lease. Thus, Stalin told Harry Hopkins [FDR's emissary to Moscow in July 1941] that the U.S.S.R. could not match Germany's might as an occupier of Europe and its resources.

 

Total garbage.  Russia produced 100,000 armoured vehicles during the war years.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_combat_vehicle_production_during_World_War_II

[Bkk Brian]

2 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Total garbage.  Russia produced 100,000 armoured vehicles during the war years.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_combat_vehicle_production_during_World_War_II

 

 

Try actually reading the link I posted

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease

[Cameroni]

4 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

 

 

Try actually reading the link I posted

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease

 

I read it 3 times before you came along, you should read it to learn that Russia  received 7000 tanks from Lend Lease, but itself produced 100,000 armoured vehicles.

 

So the figures do  not bear  out your argument.

[Bkk Brian]

3 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

I read it 3 times before you came along, you should read it to learn that Russia  received 7000 tanks from Lend Lease, but itself produced 100,000 armoured vehicles.

 

So the figures do  not bear  out your argument.

Actually it received 13,000 battle tanks but that's irrelevant to the raw materials it also received to manufacture them.

 

If you've read it 3 times then you also read the professional opinions that sort of over ride your amateur ones

 

According to the Russian historian Boris Vadimovich Sokolov, Lend-Lease had a crucial role in winning the war:

On the whole the following conclusion can be drawn: that without these Western shipments under Lend-Lease the Soviet Union not only would not have been able to win the Great Patriotic War, it would not have been able even to oppose the German invaders, since it could not itself produce sufficient quantities of arms and military equipment or adequate supplies of fuel and ammunition.

 

Nikita Khrushchev, having served as a military commissar and intermediary between Stalin and his generals during the war, addressed directly the significance of Lend-lease aid in his memoirs:

I would like to express my candid opinion about Stalin's views on whether the Red Army and the Soviet Union could have coped with Nazi Germany and survived the war without aid from the United States and Britain. First, I would like to tell about some remarks Stalin made and repeated several times when we were "discussing freely" among ourselves. He stated bluntly that if the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war.

 

In a confidential interview with the wartime correspondent Konstantin Simonov, the Soviet Marshal Georgy Zhukov is quoted as saying:

Today [1963] some say the Allies didn't really help us ... But listen, one cannot deny that the Americans shipped over to us material without which we could not have equipped our armies held in reserve or been able to continue the war.[46]

 

 

 

 

[Cameroni]

13 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Actually it received 13,000 battle tanks but that's irrelevant to the raw materials it also received to manufacture them

 

 

You should really start reading your own link more thoroughly. From the Lend Lease link you quoted:

 

"....about 7,000 Lend-Lease tanks (plus more than 5,000 British tanks) were used by the Red Army,"

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease

 

 

Of course even if it had been 13000 it would not have mattered. The Soviet Union produced 119,769 tanks and SPGs herself.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_industry_in_World_War_II

 

Stalin's cigar musings are not required, because we have actual figures for Soviet production and Lend Lease shipments.

 

Russia received 18200 aircraft through Lend Lease, but herself built 136,223 aircraft.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_industry_in_World_War_II

 

 

[Bkk Brian]

4 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

You should really start reading your own link more thoroughly. From the Lend Lease link you quoted:

 

"....about 7,000 Lend-Lease tanks (plus more than 5,000 British tanks) were used by the Red Army,"

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease

 

 

Of course even if it had been 13000 it would not have mattered. The Soviet Union produced 119,769 tanks and SPGs herself.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_industry_in_World_War_II

 

Stalin's cigar musings are not required, because we have actual figures for Soviet production and Lend Lease shipments.

 

Russia received 18200 aircraft through Lend Lease, but herself built 136,223 aircraft.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_industry_in_World_War_II

 

 

Yes I did, how does that change the opinions given? Do you have any links to professional opinions disputing this or only you?

[Cameroni]

14 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Yes I did, how does that change the opinions given? Do you have any links to professional opinions disputing this or only you?

 

Well, since we know that the Russians received 7000 tanks via Lend Lease, or let's take your 13000 if you wish, but Russia herself built 119,769 tanks and SPGs we should probably first look at what the Germans managed to produce. The answer is 67,249 tanks.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_industry_in_World_War_II

 

Given this constellation, with Russia producing 119,769 tanks and SPGs, and Germany producing 67249 tanks, we should ask, did 7000 or 13000 make a decisive difference. The answer of course is no, there is no evidence for that.

 

Very clearly Russia outnumbered Germany in tanks by almost double. So whether 7000 or 13000 tanks, it made no differce to victory.

[Bkk Brian]

Just now, Cameroni said:

 

Well, since we know that the Russians received 7000 tanks via Lend Lease, or let's take your 13000 if you wish, but Russia herself built 119,769 tanks and SPGs we should probably first look at what the Germans managed to produce. The answer is 67,249 tanks.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_industry_in_World_War_II

 

Given this constellation, with Russia producing 119,769 tanks, and Germany producing 67249 tanks, we should ask, did 7000 or 13000 make a decisive difference. The answer of course is no, there is no evidence for that.

 

Very clearly Russia outnumbered Germany in tanks by almost double. So whether 7000 or 13000 tanks, it made no differce to victory.

The British tanks were donated to Russia, over 5,000. They came from the US which donated them to the UK via Lean Lease..............

 

13,000 battle tanks. from a link I had already provided to you but you obviously failed to read.

 

How did the Russians manufacture all their tanks and shells had it not been for the necessary metals provided by the US Lend Lease? 

 

Why have you not provided any professional opinions to back up your claims?

 

"I want to tell you what, from the Russian point of view, the president and the United States have done for victory in this war," Stalin said. "The most important things in this war are the machines.... The United States is a country of machines. Without the machines we received through Lend-Lease, we would have lost the war."

 

 

[Cameroni]

Just now, Bkk Brian said:

The British tanks were donated to Russia, over 5,000. They came from the US which donated them to the UK via Lean Lease..............

 

13,000 battle tanks. from a link I had already provided to you but you obviously failed to read.

 

How did the Russians manufacture all their tanks and shells had it not been for the necessary metals provided by the US Lend Lease? 

 

Why have you not provided any professional opinions to back up your claims?

 

"I want to tell you what, from the Russian point of view, the president and the United States have done for victory in this war," Stalin said. "The most important things in this war are the machines.... The United States is a country of machines. Without the machines we received through Lend-Lease, we would have lost the war."

 

 

 

The 5000 British tanks are not lend lease, but you can count them if you want. It makes no difference whatsoever. Russia produced 119,769 tanks and SPGs . Germany 67000. Very clearly the 13000 tanks were not a causative factor in Russia's victory.

 

Stalin's musings in all  honour, but we have cold hard figures for Soviet tank and aircraft production and Lend Lease deliveries. We also have the German figures, see above. 

 

It's very clear Lend Lease or no Lend Lease, Russia would have won, they easily outproduced Germany in tanks, and were able to produce almost double the amount of tanks Germany produced. 7000 or 13000 tanks made no difference.

[Bkk Brian]

2 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

The 5000 British tanks are not lend lease, but you can count them if you want. It makes no difference whatsoever. Russia produced 119,769 tanks and SPGs . Germany 67000. Very clearly the 13000 tanks were not a causative factor in Russia's victory.

 

Stalin's musings in all  honour, but we have cold hard figures for Soviet tank and aircraft production and Lend Lease deliveries. We also have the German figures, see above. 

 

It's very clear Lend Lease or no Lend Lease, Russia would have won, they easily outproduced Germany in tanks, and were able to produce almost double the amount of tanks Germany produced. 7000 or 13000 tanks made no difference.

It's very clear Lend Lease or no Lend Lease, Russia would have won,

 

 Its not only Stalin but obviously your amateur ramblings have you in an alternate reality.

 

If it was so clear you would provide links to all the professionals opinions making it such.

[Cameroni]

4 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

It's very clear Lend Lease or no Lend Lease, Russia would have won,

 

 Its not only Stalin but obviously your amateur ramblings have you in an alternate reality.

 

If it was so clear you would provide links to all the professionals opinions making it such.

 

 

It's not necessary, you just need to look at what the USSR produced, what Germany produced and Lend Lease provided. 

 

The answer is very clear. With or without Lend Lease Russia would have won in the end.

[Bkk Brian]

Just now, Cameroni said:

 

 

It's not necessary, you just need to look at what the USSR produced, what Germany produced and Lend Lease provided. 

 

The answer is very clear. With or without Lend Lease Russia would have won in the end.

Rubbish your still not even reading the links supplied, let alone able to supply your own to back up your claims. 

 

"Lend-Lease tanks constituted 30 to 40 percent of heavy and medium tank strength before Moscow at the beginning of December 1941."

 

Yes the UK tanks were part of Lend Lease, again on the Wiki link that you claim to have read 3 times......

[thaibeachlovers]

22 hours ago, Cameroni said:

So Churchill agreed to the Morgenthau Plan knowing that 32 milllion Germans would die, in exchange for a fistful of dollars from the Americans. Yup, a real moral guy who knew right from wrong, lol.

You need to provide rather more than an opinion on that.

It was a time of monsters in human form, Stalin was a monster, Hitler was a monster. Hitler had a better military and IMO would have retained all of Europe, plus Western Russia, the UK and all of the British empire. I'm glad Churchill stood against that monster. It's just unfortunate he had to ally with another monster and allow him to take Eastern Europe.

Whatever reason for whatever they did, the end result was IMO the best possible at the time.

[thaibeachlovers]

14 hours ago, Cameroni said:

 

 

It's not necessary, you just need to look at what the USSR produced, what Germany produced and Lend Lease provided. 

 

The answer is very clear. With or without Lend Lease Russia would have won in the end.

I disagree. Had Britain surrendered, or not declared war, Germany would have had all the troops tanks and aircraft from Africa and the Channel coast to send East. You say that Russia would have won, but that is just your opinion, and but for Hitler's interference, I think Germany would have taken Russia to the Urals.

 

As it turned out Hitler probably did more to lose Barbarossa, than Stalin did to win it, IMO.

[Cameroni]

14 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

 

 

Yes the UK tanks were part of Lend Lease, again on the Wiki link that you claim to have read 3 times......

 

No, Lend Lease was an American program. The 5000 British tanks were aid the British sent and not part of Lend Lease.

 

14 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

"Lend-Lease tanks constituted 30 to 40 percent of heavy and medium tank strength before Moscow at the beginning of December 1941."

 

No it did not. Lend Lease gifted Russia 7000 tanks, but the Russians produced  119,000 armoured vehicles. If you think that's 30% you're obviously mistaken.

 

 

[Bkk Brian]

3 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

No, Lend Lease was an American program. The 5000 British tanks were aid the British sent and not part of Lend Lease.

 

 

No it did not. Lend Lease gifted Russia 7000 tanks, but the Russians produced  119,000 armoured vehicles. If you think that's 30% you're obviously mistaken.

 

 

Irrelevant to the Lend Lease that Russia received to beat Germany whether it was US or UK

 

British ‘Lend-Lease’ Aid to the USSR and the Battle of Moscow in the Light of Soviet and German Sources

[Cameroni]

11 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

You need to provide rather more than an opinion on that.

It was a time of monsters in human form, Stalin was a monster, Hitler was a monster. Hitler had a better military and IMO would have retained all of Europe, plus Western Russia, the UK and all of the British empire. I'm glad Churchill stood against that monster. It's just unfortunate he had to ally with another monster and allow him to take Eastern Europe.

Whatever reason for whatever they did, the end result was IMO the best possible at the time.

 

It was far from the best result at the time, it was one of the worst results.

 

Of course whilst Churchill approved the Morgenthau plan, which would have starved 32 million Germans to death, he also sanctioned the ethnic cleansing of 14 million Germans from the East, where huge numbers died, often tortured to death.

 

You're trying to relativize Churchill actions by saying all were monsters, try doing that with Hitler and what he did, and see what response you'd get. But I broadly agree, it was a time of war and death was everywhere, and clearly this affects everyone's decisions.

 

Nevertheless, Churchill has a lot of blood on his hands.

[Cameroni]

11 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I disagree. Had Britain surrendered, or not declared war, Germany would have had all the troops tanks and aircraft from Africa and the Channel coast to send East. You say that Russia would have won, but that is just your opinion, and but for Hitler's interference, I think Germany would have taken Russia to the Urals.

 

As it turned out Hitler probably did more to lose Barbarossa, than Stalin did to win it, IMO.

 

If you look at the TOTAL production of all German tanks during the ENTIRE war, you will see Germany produced about 67000 tanks and armoured vehicles. Russia produced, in the same period 119,000 tanks and armoured vehicles.

 

This is the ENTIRE German tank production of the entire war.

 

So whether they would have put the numbers they had in the West into Barbarossa, even that would not have enabled Germany to win looking at numbers alone.

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, Cameroni said:

Nevertheless, Churchill has a lot of blood on his hands.

So do a very very large number of people. Every US president or UK PM that went to war , every general, etc etc etc.

 

The history of humans on this planet is one of barabarism and death, from the first humanoid that killed another with a mammoth bone, to the guys  that dropped the atomic bombs. Enough blame to go around.

 

I think you made your point, and I can't be bothered to keep going around in circles, so if I remember I'm off this subject.

[Cameroni]

12 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

So do a very very large number of people. Every US president or UK PM that went to war , every general, etc etc etc.

 

The history of humans on this planet is one of barabarism and death, from the first humanoid that killed another with a mammoth bone, to the guys  that dropped the atomic bombs. Enough blame to go around.

 

I think you made your point, and I can't be bothered to keep going around in circles, so if I remember I'm off this subject.

 

 

If you put two murderers next to each other and you say this one killed someone, would the second murder be any less culpable if you said "well the first one killed someone too"? No. It's odd how with Churchill people relativize his crimes, and he did committ war crimes, but don't do so with other WWII leaders.

[RayC]

22 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

 

If you put two murderers next to each other and you say this one killed someone, would the second murder be any less culpable if you said "well the first one killed someone too"? No. It's odd how with Churchill people relativize his crimes, and he did committ war crimes, but don't do so with other WWII leaders.

 

A better analogy would be to compare Churchill, Hitler and Stalin outside of the theatre of war:  Hitler and Stalin were murderers, Churchill was not.

[Cameroni]

3 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

A better analogy would be to compare Churchill, Hitler and Stalin outside of the theatre of war:  Hitler and Stalin were murderers, Churchill was not.

 

Not true, Churchill was a murderer before WWII. 

 

"Winston Churchill, secretary of state for war and air, estimated that without the RAF, somewhere between 25,000 British and 80,000 Indian troops would be needed to control Iraq. Reliance on the airforce promised to cut these numbers to just 4,000 and 10,000. Churchill's confidence was soon repaid.

An uprising of more than 100,000 armed tribesmen against the British occupation swept through Iraq in the summer of 1920. In went the RAF. It flew missions totalling 4,008 hours, dropped 97 tons of bombs and fired 183,861 rounds for the loss of nine men killed, seven wounded and 11 aircraft destroyed behind rebel lines. The rebellion was thwarted, with nearly 9,000 Iraqis killed."

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/apr/19/iraq.arts

 

He pioneered carpet bombing in the middle East before exporting it to Europe.

 

Churchill also advocated for the use of mustard gas against the Ottoman troops.

 

 

[retarius]

FFS sake Winston said Britain should gas Iraqis. 

[placeholder]

4 hours ago, Cameroni said:

 

Not true, Churchill was a murderer before WWII. 

 

 

He pioneered carpet bombing in the middle East before exporting it to Europe.

 

 

 

 

Which came first? The Luftwaffe bombing Britain or Britain bombing Germany? Have you heard of the Blitz?

 

Before that there there was the bombing of Poland by the Germans. This is news to you?

Strategic bombing during World War II in Europe began on 1 September 1939 when Germany invaded Poland and the Luftwaffe (German Air Force) began bombing Polish cities and the civilian population in an aerial bombardment campaign.^[33

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II#:~:text=Strategic bombing during World War II in Europe began on,in an aerial bombardment campaign.

 

And also  Rotterdam:

"In 1940, Rotterdam was subjected to heavy aerial bombardment by the Luftwaffe during the German invasion of the Netherlands during the Second World War. The objective was to support the German troops fighting in the city, break Dutch resistance and force the Dutch army to surrender. Bombing began at the outset of hostilities on 10 May and culminated with the destruction of the entire historic city centre on 14 May,^[2] an event sometimes referred to as the Rotterdam Blitz.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_bombing_of_Rotterdam

 

 

[Nick Carter icp]

4 hours ago, retarius said:

FFS sake Winston said Britain should gas Iraqis. 

 Kin ell, he didnt say that 

[RayC]

5 hours ago, Cameroni said:

 

Not true, Churchill was a murderer before WWII. 

 

"Winston Churchill, secretary of state for war and air, estimated that without the RAF, somewhere between 25,000 British and 80,000 Indian troops would be needed to control Iraq. Reliance on the airforce promised to cut these numbers to just 4,000 and 10,000. Churchill's confidence was soon repaid.

An uprising of more than 100,000 armed tribesmen against the British occupation swept through Iraq in the summer of 1920. In went the RAF. It flew missions totalling 4,008 hours, dropped 97 tons of bombs and fired 183,861 rounds for the loss of nine men killed, seven wounded and 11 aircraft destroyed behind rebel lines. The rebellion was thwarted, with nearly 9,000 Iraqis killed."

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/apr/19/iraq.arts

 

He pioneered carpet bombing in the middle East before exporting it to Europe.

 

Churchill also advocated for the use of mustard gas against the Ottoman troops.

 

 

 

What is untrue about my original post?

You have chosen to ignore what it says.

 

What I wrote was: "A better analogy would be to compare Churchill, Hitler and Stalin OUTSIDE OF THE THEATRE OF WAR (addition of capitals): Hitler and Stalin were murderers, Churchill was not".

 

Churchill was Secretary of State for War at the time of your examples, so his words/ actions need to be seen in that context and are outside of the scope of my proposition.

 

Whether Churchill's actions were necessary and/or moral are different questions, but Churchill is no more a murderer than any other Head of Government or Defence/ War Minister of any nation at any point in time.

 

The fundamental difference between Hitler & Stalin and Churchill is that the former pair deliberately murdered their political opponents - and in Hitler's case engaged in genocide - Churchill did not.