The Trial of Winston Churchill

Zambia

I think we are vearing a little off topic here.

But it has to be said Russia played a huge part in defeating Germany in WWII. But then again it was not to help anyone else as lets face it prior to Barbarossa they had a non agression pact with Germany and let them invade who the wanted. Britain joined the war on behalf of an ally, and suffered greatly when it didnt have to.

Collie D

csk wrote:

Funnily enough I thought if any one should be thanked, it should be the Russians.

I'm sure millions of Poles, Czechs, Hungarians etc. wouldn't agree

csk

csk wrote:

According to wikipedia Operation Barbarossa began on the 22nd June 1941 less than two years after the beginning of WWII (September 1939).

My bad. I actually meant to say before the Russians started their counter-offensive, and Germany was forced to move alot of their reserves to the eastern front in response.

While I would not in anyway want to diminish Britain's war effort or their sacrifice, it must be remembered that 44% of all military deaths of WWII were from the Soviet Union and roughly, between civilian and military deaths, 23million Russians died. That's all from the wikipedia article.

Does the Wiki article mention how many of those deaths were caused by Russians themselves, starvation, disease, etc and not as a result of actually fighting the Germans?

This isn't a competition to see who lost more. I'm pointing out that Britain lost alot in that war, and we benefited from Germany being defeated. If Britain had fallen to the Germans its highly unlikley that any part of western europe would have managed to stay free of occupation. Its that simple.

Fratton Fred

Fratton Fred wrote:

The Nazi war machiine being bogged down by winter on the eastern front was probably the biggest factor of the war in Europe, but what led them to be still fighting in winter? Hitler and his generals were convinced the Russians would be defeated by then and, possibly, they would have if it wasn;t for the fact a large chunk of Hitlers air force were engaged in bombing Britain, also their were aid convoys sent to Russia, there were German factories bombed from Britain and, importantly, their best general was tied up chasing around north africa trying to oust Montie.

From what I've read over the years, if Hitler hadn't changed the plans, and rerouted divisions marked for certain areas, then Russia would likely have been defeated in time for the winter to set in. Hitler weakened the main thrust of the advance, and altered the supporting role of some units which slowed the advance. Instead he took the opportunity to sieze tertiary targets when the primary targets were left alone, or left without sufficient forces to fully capitalise on a success.

purple'n'gold

Deleted User wrote:

From what I've read over the years, if Hitler hadn't changed the plans, and rerouted divisions marked for certain areas, then Russia would likely have been defeated in time for the winter to set in. Hitler weakened the main thrust of the advance, and altered the supporting role of some units which slowed the advance. Instead he took the opportunity to sieze tertiary targets when the primary targets were left alone, or left without sufficient forces to fully capitalise on a success.

Your right, Hitler delayed operation barbarossa by six weeks by invading and subduing Yugoslavia. Experts including Sir Basil Liddell Hart maintain that the soviet union would have been defeated had he used that six weeks in Russia instead of taking out his spite on Yugoslavia.

walrusgumble

has anyone got a link to the churchill speech at the end of the war, referring to ireland's neutrality and de valera's response implying that churchill's speech suggested he was congratulating himself for not breaking ireland's neutrality and invading the country?

de valera made his speech on rte, i think, its just out of interest and not a way of dismissing churchill.

LordSutch

silly thread, silly title.

philologos

in terms of the Middle East he was also a racist and an Anti-Semite (in the Arab context) and often referred to them as "dogs" (in terms of ambitions for an Israeli homeland). But to understand it was a different era then and lots of nations employed extreme racial nationalism at the time.

Although this should be in the history forum? instead of politics...

csk

Collie D wrote:

I'm sure millions of Poles, Czechs, Hungarians etc. wouldn't agree

And I'm sure that some people would condemn them as backward racist dinosaurs who refuse to move on...

csk

Fratton Fred wrote:

I don't think anyone has downplayed the part of the Soviets in the war, but the posts you refer to were in response to the statement that Britain did not liberate Europe, the Soviet Union did (Althought the term liberate could be subject to debate).

The Soviets lost a lot of people, to the Nazis, to the weather and many executed by their own people.

The Nazi war machiine being bogged down by winter on the eastern front was probably the biggest factor of the war in Europe, but what led them to be still fighting in winter? Hitler and his generals were convinced the Russians would be defeated by then and, possibly, they would have if it wasn;t for the fact a large chunk of Hitlers air force were engaged in bombing Britain, also their were aid convoys sent to Russia, there were German factories bombed from Britain and, importantly, their best general was tied up chasing around north africa trying to oust Montie.

so many factors to consider and yes, the Soviets were a big factor.

Yes I know but I do get a little bit annoyed when people start up with the wholly simplistic "Britain saved us from the Nazis" based on a purely anglo-centric frame, which I suppose is unavoidable really, but still nonetheless not necessarily right.

csk

Deleted User wrote:

This isn't a competition to see who lost more.

And I never said it was.

I'm pointing out that Britain lost alot in that war, and we benefited from Germany being defeated.

The important thing to add would be inadvertent beneficiaries.

If Britain had fallen to the Germans its highly unlikley that any part of western europe would have managed to stay free of occupation. Its that simple.

Yes but it's important to remember that Ireland had made it's bed (in the form of neutrality) and was fully prepared to lie in it should the worst come to the worst. After all we had managed to come through an occupation once before that was no barrel of laughs, now was it ?

**********

Anyway I don't want to drag this off topic. I think when it comes down to it, any judgement on Churchill comes down to whether you think his positives outweigh his negatives. IMO the fact that he was an unapologetic imperialist and a downright racist makes it a hard to judge him in a positive light. I don't think you can put that down to the difference of era, I mean we don't judge Hitler's anti-semitism as a product of a different era do we ?

Also no one has mentioned the Battle of Gallipoli, didn't Churchill resign after that debacle ?

leninbenjamin

he was good for keeping britain alive during the war, but he didn't win it (rather Hitler threw it away) and quite frankly i would despise the man in any other scenario, but he was what was needed then. He played an important but exaggerated role in WWII, or so i was always taught. then again I am Irish and i suppose i could be biased...