Revisiting History: The Unlikely Campaign to Vilify Winston Churchill

[Cameroni]

5 hours ago, Evil Penevil said:

 

 

It's interesting that Hitler wasn't able to fool many British or Americans back in 1940 with his phony peace offer, but appears to have succeeded 84 years later.  Bottom line:  Churchill didn't reject peace with Gemany; he rejected a propaganda ploy.

 

You are completely wrong. Not only did the British government take the peace offer very seriously, they sought out German diplomatic staff to explore the peace offer, as the archives show:

 

"Secret files made public today reveal how an Etonian fascist sympathiser was used by the British government in an ill-fated attempt to explore the possibility of a peace deal with Germany during the Second World War. Memos written by the security service, MI5, and released by the National Archives, show James Lonsdale-Bryans, who was known to hold extreme right wing views, was given Foreign Office clearance to make secret trips to Italy."

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/aug/31/secondworldwar.nationalarchives

 

In addition, William L. Shirer's account has long been discredited as a source. The book contains ludicrous made up nonsense such as Hitler chewing a carpet. Nobody in academia refers to this book.

 

 

[Cameroni]

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Not at all. Had Britain not been a base off the coast of Nazi ruled Europe for American war supplies to be on shipped to Russia, Russia would likely have failed to defeat the Germans, and Stalin would probably have moved beyond the Urals, where the Germans would have ignored him.

The allied invasion of D Day would never have happened, and Europe would likely still be German ruled.

 

Don't forget that a Briton in Britain developed the computer which defeated Enigma, which allowed supplies from American to even cross the Atlantic.

 

You may claim that Stalin could have defeated the Germans without American arms, but I vehemently disagree on that.

 

The USSSR would have won without materiel from the West, for the simple reason that they already outnumbered Germany in tanks and planes. 

 

 

[Cameroni]

4 hours ago, placeholder said:

Thanks for making 2 assertions  that don't support your claim that Churchill's motivation was primarily due to his attachment to the British Empire.

Churchill was also willing to die in WW1 in the trenches.

As Martin Gilbert pointed out, he was vociferously opposing Hitler's Aryan ubermensch ideology when it was not an issue being addressed by most.

And now you seem to be contradicting yourself. On the one hand, you claim that Churchill had no rational reason to oppose Germany but on the other you posit an awareness that eventually Germany would pose such a threat. Make up your mind.

Churchill is on record for praising the superiority of "Aryan stock". He was not opponent of  Hitler's Aryan ideology but rather espoused it himself. On record.

 

Germany would have been stronger, militarily and economically, if she had prevailed against Russia, clealry, however, it is a completely different question if Hitler would have invaded or made war against the British empire. Most likely he would not have if Britain had agreed to the unconditional peace he offered.

 

There is no contradiction, controrary to your claim.

[placeholder]

18 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

Churchill is on record for praising the superiority of "Aryan stock". He was not opponent of  Hitler's Aryan ideology but rather espoused it himself. On record.

 

Germany would have been stronger, militarily and economically, if she had prevailed against Russia, clealry, however, it is a completely different question if Hitler would have invaded or made war against the British empire. Most likely he would not have if Britain had agreed to the unconditional peace he offered.

 

There is no contradiction, controrary to your claim.

And yet Churchill had close Jewish friends. Let me cite again this passage to you:

 Churchill was in Germany in 1932 doing some research on an ancestor of his. Someone offered to arrange for Churchill to meet Hitler. Churchill mentioned a few questions to ask Hitler in advance to prep for their meeting. I'll let Martin Gilbert take it from here...

"Among them was the following

question: “What is the sense of being against a man simply because of his birth? How can any man help how he is born?” 

This may seem a simple sentiment to us now, but how many people, distinguished people from Britain, the United States and other countries, who met or might have met Hitler, raised that question with him? So surprised, and possibly angered, was Hitler by this question that he declined to come to the hotel and see Churchill.

FROM the moment that Hitler came to power, Churchill in his public speeches, and in his Parliamentary speeches, made it clear that the racial aspect of Nazism was a central concern. He always insisted on raising this issue, and pointing out the relevance to his listeners of the Nazi racial policies, and this he did again and again."

https://winstonchurchill.org/the-life-of-churchill/war-leader/churchill-and-the-holocaust-the-possible-and-impossible/

 

Maybe this seems to you like sentiments that Hitler would share. Not so much to me.

 

As for your prediction about what Hitler would and wouldn't have done...the man was an inveterate liar with an immense hunger for power. It seems dubious that he would have tolerated a British empire to exist.  But you take a more benign view of Hitler's character.

[DonniePeverley]

Awful guy

[thaibeachlovers]

4 hours ago, Cameroni said:

 

The USSSR would have won without materiel from the West, for the simple reason that they already outnumbered Germany in tanks and planes. 

 

 

German tanks and tactics were far superior to Soviet ones. Try reading the Kursk battle. Significant words Germany won the tactical battle. However, Hitler's incompetence allowed the Soviets to gain the overall victory.

https://www.counterview.net/2023/12/world-war-ii-how-battle-of-kursk.html

The Soviets won the Battle of Kursk and shattered Hitler’s dream of conquering Russia. Germany won the tactical battle but was unable to penetrate the Red Army’s fortifications and so lost the advantage.

 

IMO the German army was defeated because Hitler constantly interfered in the tactics and he was no general. IMO Hitler won the war for the allies by sheer incompetence, though Goering helped by being an overoptimistic braggard. Wars are not won by airpower. They are won on the ground.

[thaibeachlovers]

4 hours ago, Cameroni said:

Churchill is on record for praising the superiority of "Aryan stock". He was not opponent of  Hitler's Aryan ideology but rather espoused it himself. On record.

 

Germany would have been stronger, militarily and economically, if she had prevailed against Russia, clealry, however, it is a completely different question if Hitler would have invaded or made war against the British empire. Most likely he would not have if Britain had agreed to the unconditional peace he offered.

 

There is no contradiction, controrary to your claim.

What is indisputable though is that the world would be very different had Churchill surrendered. I for one am very happy he did not.

[retarius]

Racist, fascist, horrible person....and don't forget his pig ignorant stubbornness over the Dardanelles that cost over hundred thousand Anzac lives. He didn't 'win the war'. 75% of German resources were in the East fighting Russia....the western front was totally pacified with only token German resources. Russia did the heavy lifting, the Brits and the Yanks coasted through a token resistance then stole the glory. 

[JonnyF]

Churchill was a legend.

 

Of course he might have said some non PC things but he was a man of his time, and the man required in that moment. 

 

I've been reliably informed that on the day I entered this world, I was his spitting image. So he was not only a great mind. 

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, retarius said:

Brits and the Yanks coasted through a token resistance then stole the glory. 

And you accuse Churchill of being pig ignorant.

[stevenl]

8 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Churchill was a legend.

 

Of course he might have said some non PC things but he was a man of his time, and the man required in that moment. 

 

I've been reliably informed that on the day I entered this world, I was his spitting image. So he was not only a great mind. 

Laughing emoji because of your last comment. Agree with the rest of your post. We really have to stop looking at past actions and opinions from our present perspective.

[Cameroni]

9 hours ago, placeholder said:

And yet Churchill had close Jewish friends. Let me cite again this passage to you:

 Churchill was in Germany in 1932 doing some research on an ancestor of his. Someone offered to arrange for Churchill to meet Hitler. Churchill mentioned a few questions to ask Hitler in advance to prep for their meeting. I'll let Martin Gilbert take it from here...

"Among them was the following

question: “What is the sense of being against a man simply because of his birth? How can any man help how he is born?” 

This may seem a simple sentiment to us now, but how many people, distinguished people from Britain, the United States and other countries, who met or might have met Hitler, raised that question with him? So surprised, and possibly angered, was Hitler by this question that he declined to come to the hotel and see Churchill.

FROM the moment that Hitler came to power, Churchill in his public speeches, and in his Parliamentary speeches, made it clear that the racial aspect of Nazism was a central concern. He always insisted on raising this issue, and pointing out the relevance to his listeners of the Nazi racial policies, and this he did again and again."

https://winstonchurchill.org/the-life-of-churchill/war-leader/churchill-and-the-holocaust-the-possible-and-impossible/

 

Maybe this seems to you like sentiments that Hitler would share. Not so much to me.

 

As for your prediction about what Hitler would and wouldn't have done...the man was an inveterate liar with an immense hunger for power. It seems dubious that he would have tolerated a British empire to exist.  But you take a more benign view of Hitler's character.

 

Yes very much so, he had several Jewish friends, who as we've seen gave him substantial gifts of money. However, we have also seen Churchill himself expressing opinions which by today's standard would have seen him firmly dragged into the antisemitic corner, blaming the jews for persecution.

 

The quote you provide is of course flatly contradicted by other quotes from Churchill where he goes on record to show precisely he was against others due to race and birth:

 

In 1902, Churchill stated that "The Aryan stock is bound to triumph" and also:

 

I do not admit ... for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.

 

Henry A. Wallace, Vice President of the USA, reports in his diary that during a White House lunch in May 1943 Churchill "said why be apologetic about Anglo-Saxon superiority, that we were superior, that we had the common heritage which had been worked out over the centuries in England and had been perfected by our constitution."

 

Churchill's personal doctor, Lord Moran, commented at one point that, in regards to other races, "Winston thinks only of the colour of their skin."

 

But not only was Churchill's stance against other men, based on their birth and race, ideological, no, he also took actions which killed people, that were born out of this strong racism Churchill harboured. For instance during WWII Churchill's role in the Bengal famine was appalling. Despite pleas by his own British colonial administration to ease the Indian famine, Churchill stockpiled food in front of the Indians' noses and prioritised it for the British people, knowing full well there was a famine in India, the food was there and could have helped ease the starvation, but he  stockpiled the food there for further shipment to Britain. Three million Indians died as a result of starvation.

 

Churchill described the Arabs as a "lower manifestation" than the Jews, whom he viewed as a "higher grade race" compared to the "great hordes of Islam"

 

in his 1920 article which he titled "Zionism versus Bolshevism", he wrote that communism, which he considered a "worldwide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality",[40] had been established in Russia by Jews:

 

There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution, by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews; it is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders.[61]

 

Although an anti-Semitic belief in an international Jewish conspiracy was not unique among British politicians of the time, few of them had the stature of Churchill.[62] The article was criticised by the Jewish Chronicle at the time, calling it "the most reckless and scandalous campaign in which even the most discredited politicians have ever engaged".[63] The Chronicle said Churchill had adopted "the hoary tactics of hooligan anti-Semites" in his article.

 

In May 1954 Violet Bonham-Carter asked Churchill's opinion about a Labour Party visit to China. Winston Churchill replied:

I hate people with slit eyes and pigtails. I don't like the look of them or the smell of them – but I suppose it does no great harm to have a look at them.

 

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

 

So whether or not Winston Churchill was the greatest Briton of all time or not, personally I would rate Cecil Rhodes higher, Churchill certainly was the greatest racist of the British establishment who came to power.

 

Whether this anecdote you relate, about Churchill staying in the same hotel and making this comment to Putzi Hanfstaengl is true or not is debatable, Putzi Hanfstaengl was a known liar. But it may well be. We know that after being informed of Americans barring men of colour from military buildings Churchill made a racist joke, but he also wrote to the Americans that they should not expect support from the British in enforcing this colour ban.

 

Despite Churchill's deep rooted racism it was indeed as if in many instances an innate decency, and ability to distinguish right from wrong, overrode his racism. But that was not always the case, as in the famine of Bengal, even though there too, at the end Churchill did the right thing. Equally the same instances of decent behaviour can be observed by Hitler on occasion, however, on others he behaved absolutely  abominably. Both men show that there is good and bad in all men. But we should certainly be very modest in declaring Churchill a champion of equality. He wasn't always.

[thaibeachlovers]

11 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

So whether or not Winston Churchill was the greatest Briton of all time or not

Certainly he was not, but he was the man required at that time to preserve the British Isles as a base against the Nazis.

[placeholder]

46 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Yes very much so, he had several Jewish friends, who as we've seen gave him substantial gifts of money. However, we have also seen Churchill himself expressing opinions which by today's standard would have seen him firmly dragged into the antisemitic corner, blaming the jews for persecution.

 

The quote you provide is of course flatly contradicted by other quotes from Churchill where he goes on record to show precisely he was against others due to race and birth:

 

In 1902, Churchill stated that "The Aryan stock is bound to triumph" and also:

 

I do not admit ... for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.

 

Henry A. Wallace, Vice President of the USA, reports in his diary that during a White House lunch in May 1943 Churchill "said why be apologetic about Anglo-Saxon superiority, that we were superior, that we had the common heritage which had been worked out over the centuries in England and had been perfected by our constitution."

 

Churchill's personal doctor, Lord Moran, commented at one point that, in regards to other races, "Winston thinks only of the colour of their skin."

 

But not only was Churchill's stance against other men, based on their birth and race, ideological, no, he also took actions which killed people, that were born out of this strong racism Churchill harboured. For instance during WWII Churchill's role in the Bengal famine was appalling. Despite pleas by his own British colonial administration to ease the Indian famine, Churchill stockpiled food in front of the Indians' noses and prioritised it for the British people, knowing full well there was a famine in India, the food was there and could have helped ease the starvation, but he  stockpiled the food there for further shipment to Britain. Three million Indians died as a result of starvation.

 

Churchill described the Arabs as a "lower manifestation" than the Jews, whom he viewed as a "higher grade race" compared to the "great hordes of Islam"

 

in his 1920 article which he titled "Zionism versus Bolshevism", he wrote that communism, which he considered a "worldwide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality",[40] had been established in Russia by Jews:

 

There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution, by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews; it is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders.[61]

 

Although an anti-Semitic belief in an international Jewish conspiracy was not unique among British politicians of the time, few of them had the stature of Churchill.[62] The article was criticised by the Jewish Chronicle at the time, calling it "the most reckless and scandalous campaign in which even the most discredited politicians have ever engaged".[63] The Chronicle said Churchill had adopted "the hoary tactics of hooligan anti-Semites" in his article.

 

In May 1954 Violet Bonham-Carter asked Churchill's opinion about a Labour Party visit to China. Winston Churchill replied:

I hate people with slit eyes and pigtails. I don't like the look of them or the smell of them – but I suppose it does no great harm to have a look at them.

 

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

 

So whether or not Winston Churchill was the greatest Briton of all time or not, personally I would rate Cecil Rhodes higher, Churchill certainly was the greatest racist of the British establishment who came to power.

 

Whether this anecdote you relate, about Churchill staying in the same hotel and making this comment to Putzi Hanfstaengl is true or not is debatable, Putzi Hanfstaengl was a known liar. But it may well be. We know that after being informed of Americans barring men of colour from military buildings Churchill made a racist joke, but he also wrote to the Americans that they should not expect support from the British in enforcing this colour ban.

 

Despite Churchill's deep rooted racism it was indeed as if in many instances an innate decency, and ability to distinguish right from wrong, overrode his racism. But that was not always the case, as in the famine of Bengal, even though there too, at the end Churchill did the right thing. Equally the same instances of decent behaviour can be observed by Hitler on occasion, however, on others he behaved absolutely  abominably. Both men show that there is good and bad in all men. But we should certainly be very modest in declaring Churchill a champion of equality. He wasn't always.

There is  no doubt that Churchhill repeatedly denounced the Nazi's so called scientific racism. There is no doubt that he did not call Slavs, Romany, homosexuals,  and Jews sub-humans. And what's crucial, he did not have a program to systematically exterminate tens of millions of people in the name of science.  When did he ever call for the systematic extermination of a people because of his racial prejudices. Because of Churchill, hundreds of millions of Europeans were spared the nightmare of living their entire lives under Nazi rule. Maybe to you the prospect of living under Nazi rule wouldn't be a nightmare?

[frank83628]

On 9/11/2024 at 5:15 AM, Tug said:

Right wing populist politicians are now mouthpieces for Putin in my humble opinion.This is just another way for putin to sow discord among the world’s democracy’s.

yeah, all Putins doing!, have you ever stopped to think that possibly some people have different opinions and values to you?

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, frank83628 said:

yeah, all Putins doing!, have you ever stopped to think that possibly some people have different opinions and values to you?

Especially those who get their opinions from the Kremlin’s misinformation machine.

[mokwit]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Especially those who get their opinions from the Kremlin’s misinformation machine.

As opposed to the Democrat misinformation machine.

 

How about those who don't get it that their own Democrat party is blaming Putin to cover up their own shortcomings. "Putins inflation", Hillary lost to Trump because of "Russian intervention" rather than because she was such an awful candidate etc.

[Cameroni]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Certainly he was not, but he was the man required at that time to preserve the British Isles as a base against the Nazis.

 

He did pit Britain against Germany, true, but whether that was really required, given the fact that it was 20 million Russians who gave their lives to defeat the Wehrmacht, not Brits, this is far from certain. Had Churchill accepted the 1940 peace offer, Germany may well have been defeated by Russia in any event, given the vast superiority in tanks and planes the Russians enjoyed.

Edited September 13 by Cameroni

[Chomper Higgot]

8 minutes ago, mokwit said:

As opposed to the Democrat misinformation machine.

 

How about those who don't get it that their own Democrat party is blaming Putin to cover up their own shortcomings. "Putins inflation", Hillary lost to Trump because of "Russian intervention" rather than because she was such an awful candidate etc.

“Russia, if you’re listening”

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

7 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

He did pit Britain against Germany, true, but whether that was really required, given the fact that it was 20 million Russians who gave their lives to defeat the Wehrmacht, not Brits, this is far from certain. Had Churchill accepted the 1940 peace offer, Germany may well have been defeated by Russia in any event, given the vast superiority in tanks and planes the Russians enjoyed.

Oh so the hundred of thousands of British and British Empire troops, airmen, sailors who fought to help defeat the Nazis had no impact?

 

Here’s an undeniable fact, they knew precisely how to deal with Nazis, Nazi sympathizers and those giving Nazis a helping hand.

[Cameroni]

58 minutes ago, placeholder said:

There is  no doubt that Churchhill repeatedly denounced the Nazi's so called scientific racism. There is no doubt that he did not call Slavs, Romany, homosexuals,  and Jews sub-humans. And what's crucial, he did not have a program to systematically exterminate tens of millions of people in the name of science.  When did he ever call for the systematic extermination of a people because of his racial prejudices. Because of Churchill, hundreds of millions of Europeans were spared the nightmare of living their entire lives under Nazi rule. Maybe to you the prospect of living under Nazi rule wouldn't be a nightmare?

 

Churchill of course didn't need a program of extermination. The British had already done their extermination, piracy, theft when they made the Empire. Churchill had already benefitted from the British Generalplan Ost, the Empire was already established. Churchill's and Hitler's racism came from different places.

 

I think it is clear that both Churchill and Hitler were deeply rooted racists. However, Churchill benefitted from his vast travels in other parts of the world and his exposure to other ethnic groups. Often that reinforced his racism, but it most likely also mellowed it a bit. Nobody can deny that Churchill refused to participate in the American ban on colour in military buildings and wrote to the Americans to tell them so. One could say Churchill's racism was not full of hatred as it was with Hitler at times. For the simple reason that Churchill came from the establishment, he was at the very top, in a very priveleged position in the hierarchy. He also saw himself as the head of the greatest Empire in the world. His empire was already set up.

 

Hitler, on the other hand came from a nation that had been in constant struggle with people from the East. Germany did not have an empire to speak of. Churchill did not need Lebensraum, he had the Empire. Germany on the other hand did not. Britain had won WWI, Germany was humiliated, had large swathes of its territory annexed by Poland, Romania, Czechs, etc. Hitler experienced defeat in the field, not victory at the top of the hierarchy as Churchill did despite his humiliation at Gallipolli

 

So Germany did not have an empire. Hitler was full ressentiments after WWI and the humiliations that were heaped on Germany. It was natural that Churchill's racism would be more mellow, so to speak, not as vicious and full of hatred as Hitler's.  Of course Churchill did not need to exterminate people,  his British ancestors had already taken care of that, the British Generalplan Ost had been implemented. Indeed many of the world's nations today owe their boundaries to British colonialism. Indeed some of our problems today, like Palestine, stem from British resettlement policy.

Edited September 13 by Cameroni

[Cameroni]

20 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Oh so the hundred of thousands of British and British Empire troops, airmen, sailors who fought to help defeat the Nazis had no impact?

 

Here’s an undeniable fact, they knew precisely how to deal with Nazis, Nazi sympathizers and those giving Nazis a helping hand.

 

Oh they had an impact, mostly to murder German women, children and the elderly by the hundreds of thousands. There was some minor military significance, but overall one has to conclude that it was Russia, not Britain, that defeated the Wehrmacht.

[Chomper Higgot]

10 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Oh they had an impact, mostly to murder German women, children and the elderly by the hundreds of thousands. There was some minor military significance, but overall one has to conclude that it was Russia, not Britain, that defeated the Wehrmacht.

Murder is the stuff the Nazis were engaging in as the conducted their genocidal campaigns, stuff you obfuscate  and excuse.

 

I trust you do accept the British, Americans and Russians too did know how to deal with Nazis, Nazi sympathizers and Nazi enablers.

 

 

 

 

[candide]

It's quite an interesting debate about history....

 

However, I doubt that the far-right is motivated by a scientific concern. Why do they come up with this tactic to criticize Churchill (who, BTW was very right-wing)?

[Cameroni]

16 minutes ago, candide said:

It's quite an interesting debate about history....

 

However, I doubt that the far-right is motivated by a scientific concern. Why do they come up with this tactic to criticize Churchill (who, BTW was very right-wing)?

 

In Darryl Cooper's case there is no doubt that he genuinely views Churchill as the villain of WWII. He even fell out with his co podcast host over this point.

 

Professor John Charmley has also been highly critical of Churchill, and nobody at the time imputed this to his position on the political spectrum.  

 

The fact is Churchill did a lot that can be criticised. It's just looking at history objectively that will lead you to that conclusion.

 

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

[RayC]

8 hours ago, retarius said:

Racist, fascist, horrible person....and don't forget his pig ignorant stubbornness over the Dardanelles that cost over hundred thousand Anzac lives. He didn't 'win the war'. 75% of German resources were in the East fighting Russia....the western front was totally pacified with only token German resources. Russia did the heavy lifting, the Brits and the Yanks coasted through a token resistance then stole the glory. 

 

You need to check your timeline and facts. If you do so, you might avoid looking like a complete fool in the future.

 

Between June 1940 - when France fell - and June 1941 -when Hitler broke the German/Russia pact - the UK (and the Commonwealth) was alone in opposing Germany. No German forces were directed towards Russia, and the US had not yet entered the war. If the UK had succumbed during this period, the world would be a much different place today. The world - or at the very least, Europe - will be forever in the UK's debt for its' fortitude during this period.

 

Churchill had many faults and failures, but his views about Nazi Germany and his role in its' defeat were not among them.

Edited September 13 by RayC
Correction

[RayC]

7 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

I've been reliably informed that on the day I entered this world, I was his (Churchill's) spitting image. So he was not only a great mind. 

 

Personally, I'd had kept quiet about that but, beauty in the eye of the beholder, etc😉

 

[Cameroni]

3 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

 

Between June 1940 - when France fell - and June 1941 -when Hitler broke the German/Russia pact - the UK was alone in opposing Germany. No German forces were directed towards Russia, and the US had not yet entered the war. If the UK had succumbed during this period, the world would be a much different place today.

I doubt it very much.

 

The UK opposing Germany had very minor military effects in that period. Had the UK accepted the 1940 peace offer from Germany, most likely exactly the same things would have happened, the USSR would have defeated Germany, the empire countries would have demanded independence eventually.

 

I don't see the UK opposing Germany having had much of an effect, after all the British army vacated the continent defeated, and Churchill had little to fight Germany with, apart from bombing civilians. That is why he wanted the US or Russia to do the fighting for him of course, because he coudln't.

 

[RayC]

2 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

I doubt it very much.

 

The UK opposing Germany had very minor military effects in that period. Had the UK accepted the 1940 peace offer from Germany, most likely exactly the same things would have happened, the USSR would have defeated Germany, the empire countries would have demanded independence eventually.

 

I don't see the UK opposing Germany having had much of an effect, after all the British army vacated the continent defeated, and Churchill had little to fight Germany with, apart from bombing civilians. That is why he wanted the US or Russia to do the fighting for him of course, because he coudln't.

 

 

Imo complete and utter tosh.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain

 

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

 

[Cameroni]

10 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

Imo complete and utter tosh.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain

 

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

 

On the eve of Barbarossa this was the numerical advantage of the USSR (on the right)

 

3,350–3,795 tanks[3][1][4][5] 3,030–3,072 other AFVs[6][b] 2,770–5,369 aircraft[3][7] ]

Frontline strength (22 June 1941) 2.6–2.9 million personnel[9][10] 11,000 tanks[11][12] 7,133–9,100 military aircraf

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

 

As you can see the Soviets had 11,000 tanks compared to Germany's 3795

 

They had 9100 aircraft to Germany's 5369.

 

The USSR was already ludicrously outnumbering Germany in terms of material before Lend Lease came into full force. 

 

Germany's attack on Soviet Russia was the single biggest blunder of WWII, made on faulty information on Russia's strength by Fremde Heere Ost. Most Generals were aware of this and counselled against this attack. The decision to proceed was made on inaccurate intelligence data provided by Fremde Heere Ost, who bear most of the responsibility for this blunder.

 

The battle of Britain had some effect on Luftwaffe strength, but it was limited.