Hey Britts

refill · Post by **refill** » Tue May 03, 2011 10:42 am

RYJ, the way I see it being a Brit but raised and edumacated abroad I tend to see things little differently to those of Europa.

I have not read that book on WC but to get a good understanding of the man you will need to read up on his actions from the Boar War to the Great War. I can't think of a single man in modern history who has done more to ensure the deaths of British and colonial menfolk over an extended period of time.

But if you turn on the idiot box over here (where most peeps here get their history and world view) you are still bombarded with the propaganda on the man. There are several less that flattering books written on him, one of the best I know is in Afrikaans but fear of retribution stops me from listing any titles for you.

Churchill was once quoted as saying "history will be kind to me for I intend to write it." Which essentially sums up where we are up to regarding him.

But I have to admit that he was a very talented orator, painter and publicist but even there, things are not all they seem.

On a lighter note.... I could not help but read that one of Douglas Barder's grandsons (antique furniture thief) was beaten within an inch of his life the other week by a Polish chap! lol!!!!

Now GEEEEEEERRRRRRMAN'S, stop being $#@!ing barbarians you heathens, grows some balls and teach yer kids how to play rugby more. Germans in SA play rugby, South Africans in Germany play rugby. Why no Germans play rugby in Germany? Bloody Jerry's!

ryjamsan · Post by **ryjamsan** » Thu May 05, 2011 4:13 am

No one debates WC had personality issues, we all do:)

He was a force. He knew how and what should be done and pushed his will on other people. Sometimes his ideas was not the best but his purpose was.

I only know him as a "Warlord"(from the book) but know that I have listened to his speeches from thruout the war I am convienced even more of how awesome a war time leader he was. It is my opinion and (you Britts my disagree with me) that he and he alone is responsable for saving the "British Empire"

From 1938 on he warned over and over about the threat Hitler posed. No one listened. Everyone around him in leadership positions thought Hitler could and would be contained. As he occupied the Rhineland, Re-armed, Annexed Austria, Annex Chec and threatend Poland. WC was the only one I know of from histroy who predicted that the end of WWI was only a pre-coursor to another world war.

This is only my opinion as an American:)

BTW Chaberlian(spelling would have made peace with Hitler after poland or france fell.

But I must pose another question. Since Hitler declared war on the US after Pearl Harbor, If he had not how long would the US have waited to declare war on Germany?

I pose this, If the US had not sent troops to GB, Would Russia have fallen by 1942? Could Russia have defeated Germany with only materail support from the US and GB as opposed to a 2nd/3rd and even a 4th front? 1st front being Russia, 2nd from being Africa then the 3rd front being Italy/Southern France and the 4th front being Normandy

So imagine with open eyes for a moment of no western front for Germany. Italy in control of Africa. GB attempting with all she had(including the comminwealth) Russia standing alone versus Germany? Could Russia survive?

I look forward to a civil and simple debate about this topic

Anyone seen a movie called Fatherland?

The premise is Germany wins the war and its 1950's and Hitler is dying. Then rumors start about the holocaust? Anyone? I think it was a made for TV movie

MrChaos · Post by **MrChaos** » Thu May 05, 2011 7:33 am

Ryj (got it right this time Ruam ~yp)

The US declared war on Germany after Pearl Harbor then the Germans did the same in return. Thisis how it went down.

After reading this thread and holding no real opinion on the man and really still don't I'm thinking now
Churchill = right tool for the right job

double entendre intended

edit: hmmmm it appears it was Germany/Italy then the US and not what I wrote above. My apologies ryj

notjarvis · Post by **notjarvis** » Thu May 05, 2011 7:49 am

ryjamsan wrote:QUOTE (ryjamsan @ May 5 2011, 05:13 AM) Anyone seen a movie called Fatherland?

The premise is Germany wins the war and its 1950's and Hitler is dying. Then rumors start about the holocaust? Anyone? I think it was a made for TV movie

The book is much much better than the TV movie with Rutger Hauer.

The premise in that is that The Brits eventually surrender as the Nazi find out Enigma is being regularly broken, and decimate UK naval and resupply lines, the British Government is in exile, while sympathetic Royals are made the Monarchy.

America hold an uneasy peace with Germany, not least because during and before the war a number of US politicians showed sympathy with Nazi Era Germany and it's aims, and they made an uneasy truce as Germany also had the bomb.

The eastern front with Russia still continued to be fought in a guerilla war throughout.

The Holocaust was basically kept quiet, and the camps destroyed after the war.

Anyway as for your question, Churchill is basically referred to as a war hero/ great wartime leader in general over here. The prevalent national myth being that we beat the Germans in two world wars (sigh).

Duckwarrior · Post by **Duckwarrior** » Thu May 05, 2011 7:59 am

MrChaos wrote:QUOTE (MrChaos @ May 5 2011, 08:33 AM) Ryj (got it right this time Ruam ~yp)

The US declared war on Germany after Pearl Harbor then the Germans did the same in return. Thisis how it went down.

After reading this thread and holding no real opinion on the man and really still don't I'm thinking now
Churchill = right tool for the right job

double entendre intended

MrC considers Mr Churchill to be a "right tool".

Interesting...

HSharp · Post by **HSharp** » Thu May 05, 2011 9:17 am

ryjamsan wrote:QUOTE (ryjamsan @ May 5 2011, 05:13 AM) BTW Chaberlian(spelling would have made peace with Hitler after poland or france fell.

I pose this, If the US had not sent troops to GB, Would Russia have fallen by 1942? Could Russia have defeated Germany with only materail support from the US and GB as opposed to a 2nd/3rd and even a 4th front? 1st front being Russia, 2nd from being Africa then the 3rd front being Italy/Southern France and the 4th front being Normandy

So imagine with open eyes for a moment of no western front for Germany. Italy in control of Africa. GB attempting with all she had(including the comminwealth) Russia standing alone versus Germany? Could Russia survive?

Chamberlain resigned from office when France was invaded and by that time Poland was already occupied by both Russia and Germany, though his policy of appeasement failed and had he acted sooner then maybe many lives would have been saved, however he tried to avert the bloodiest war in history and even though he failed and made the wrong choice you can't blame him as hindsight is 20/20.

If Germany faced all it's might against Russia and had no other problems to deal with then it would have beaten Russia, it would have still taken a while though because you shouldn't attack Russia in winter (which is why the German offensive stopped at Stalingrad as it was Winter then) but Germany's industrial capacity and technology with all the resources of Europe (sans British Isles) and North Africa would have been able to beat Russia if they didn't have to worry about anything else.

I'm not understanding your point, are you trying to make another what would WW2 been like without the US argument?

Duckwarrior · Post by **Duckwarrior** » Thu May 05, 2011 10:19 am

Italy certainly wasn't in control of North Afirca prior to the German deployment. The Italians were virtually beaten in Africa by late 1940.

If you want to read a good non-fiction book that could be the script of a Hollywood blockbuster, I recommend Operation Mincemeat by Ben Macintyre. It touches briefly on the North African campaign. It is a good read.

Grimmwolf_GB · Post by **Grimmwolf_GB** » Thu May 05, 2011 10:23 am

ryjamsan wrote:QUOTE (ryjamsan @ May 5 2011, 06:13 AM) I pose this, If the US had not sent troops to GB, Would Russia have fallen by 1942? Could Russia have defeated Germany with only materail support from the US and GB as opposed to a 2nd/3rd and even a 4th front? 1st front being Russia, 2nd from being Africa then the 3rd front being Italy/Southern France and the 4th front being Normandy

The Us entering the war didn't much of a difference, as they already supported the brits and the russians. The invasion in '43 was a distraction, but the eastern front was already in deep trouble. With Operation Zitadelle (Battle of Kursk) utterly failing, the germans had no offensive capabilities anymore and had to fight their way back home. With or without the US troops in europe, germany would have lost. In the end it was just a question of who conquers how much of it.

HSharp wrote:QUOTE (HSharp @ May 5 2011, 11:17 AM) If Germany faced all it's might against Russia and had no other problems to deal with then it would have beaten Russia, it would have still taken a while though because you shouldn't attack Russia in winter (which is why the German offensive stopped at Stalingrad as it was Winter then) but Germany's industrial capacity and technology with all the resources of Europe (sans British Isles) and North Africa would have been able to beat Russia if they didn't have to worry about anything else.

That wasn't his question, as he only meant the effect of US troops in the european theatre. Also, you are wrong, Stalingrad was in '42-'43. The Operation Barbarossa (Invasion of Russia) started in '41 and stopped in the outskirts of moscow in the winter of '41. With a proper planning, the Wehrmacht could have conquered Moscow before the beginning of the winter.

MrChaos · Post by **MrChaos** » Thu May 05, 2011 9:01 pm

that_bloke · Post by **that_bloke** » Thu May 05, 2011 9:12 pm

NJ got there before me.

The fatherland book is really good, though it all finishes a bit suddenly imho.

Also, what's this "no western front" business? We were still kicking, sorta