Nyghtshayde t1_j7mcbok wrote
Reply to comment by cancerballs69420 in Would the Allies have kept fighting if the axis powers stopped? by Techno-87
All we remember now is Britain's resistance, but there were absolutely people who wanted to sue for peace. It's understandable but it's fortunate that Churchill really had a handle on Hitler and knew that this was basically a war to the end, either now or later.
cancerballs69420 t1_j7menl5 wrote
Say what you will about Churchill but he really nailed the whole WW2 thing
unknownintime t1_j7mltgp wrote
Some folks know how to deal with bullies.
It's just unfortunate that it's incredibly difficult for them to stop treating everyone that way once the bully has been beaten.
hallofmirrors87 t1_j7mxw9v wrote
Considering Churchill LOVED bullying the colonized, he’d know Hitlers playbook to a t.
[deleted] t1_j7mnirk wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j7mptth wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j7mpxp3 wrote
[removed]
kawhi_2020 t1_j7moz3y wrote
His highest priority was the preservation of the British Empire. The whole Mediterranean campaign from North Africa to Italy was about British control of the routes to India, not about defeating Germany. Churchill wanted US-UK joint attack to go through the Balkans and try to hit Germany from the southeast to get there before the Soviets did. America had to negotiate to attack Italy instead, which was not strategically relevant to the main war.
It was also Churchill's decision to continue exporting food from India to build stockpiles while people in India starved to death. There wasn't a food shortage in Britain but he helped make one in India.
He deserves credit for the things he did like keeping Britain engaged but he did not "nail' the whole thing. He made plenty of mistakes and oversights.
quarky_uk t1_j7msocl wrote
I am pretty sure the Med campaign was because Italy was much easier to assault (and an easier place to open up a second front, which the Soviets were crying out for), and also because I think there was oil in the Middle East.
No need to make up conspiracies.
Fireantstirfry t1_j7mpufy wrote
It's always really nice seeing a balanced and objective comment regarding Churchill. So refreshing.
the_better_twin t1_j7ms9rw wrote
I mean you just have read about Gallipoli to know he wasn't infallible and made plenty of mistakes. It is very easy to judge someone with the benefit of hindsight however.
hamandcheese_1 t1_j7mtgwg wrote
History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it.
Nonions t1_j7mwmi6 wrote
In fairness about Gallipoli, I don't think they actually followed through with Churchill's actual plan. If they had steamed through and just taken the losses in old obsolete battleships it might have worked with considerably fewer deaths.
kawhi_2020 t1_j7mxcis wrote
Roosevelt judged Churchill accurately at the time. Churchill was an imperialist and Roosevelt (while certainly always pushing American political and commercial interests) did support the independence of India and other colonial territories.
De Gaulle was another imperialist that Roosevelt didnt like too much, but agreed to work with (though certainly not at the level of Churchill, for practical reasons).
[deleted] t1_j7mthf4 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j7mts55 wrote
[deleted]
NickRick t1_j7mwyru wrote
>Hitler2.0, did you mean Thatcher Alpha Version?
Andrew5329 t1_j7mrr5v wrote
> exporting food from India to build stockpiles while people in India starved to death.
In fairness, 70 years after the end of the British Raj this hasn't really changed. About 40% or children under 5 in India still experience stunted growth from malnutrition, about 20% experience wasting from starvation, and about 800k children die from starvation, double that if you include malnutrition related disease.
Roll back to 2000 and the figures were much higher.
[deleted] t1_j7mtsqi wrote
[deleted]
Jackanova3 t1_j7mx1qm wrote
You're making the opposite point you think you're making.
[deleted] t1_j7mqafd wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j7mmbrg wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j7mw88s wrote
[removed]
Kronzypantz t1_j7mneg6 wrote
This is still just nostalgia baiting.
No British government was going to make peace with Hitler on any terms that made Britain second fiddle to Germany. No Greater Germany, no Lebenstraum, no colonial concessions. Any of these would mean Britain being eclipsed as the leading superpower in Europe.
thebardbecoming t1_j7muid0 wrote
>All we remember now is Britain's resistance, but there were absolutely people who wanted to sue for peace. It's understandable but it's fortunate that Churchill really had a handle on Hitler and knew that this was basically a war to the end, either now or later.
The foresight required to make that decision.. incredible.
warren_stupidity t1_j7motdr wrote
Yup lots of Nazis in GB and in the US.
[deleted] t1_j7mrf6o wrote
[removed]
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments