Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

cancerballs69420 t1_j7menl5 wrote

Reply to comment by Nyghtshayde in Would the Allies have kept fighting if the axis powers stopped? by Techno-87

Say what you will about Churchill but he really nailed the whole WW2 thing

148

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.

64

hallofmirrors87 t1_j7mxw9v wrote

Considering Churchill LOVED bullying the colonized, he’d know Hitlers playbook to a t.

2

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.

64

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.

38

Fireantstirfry t1_j7mpufy wrote

It's always really nice seeing a balanced and objective comment regarding Churchill. So refreshing.

31

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.

18

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.

3

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).

2

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.

8

Jackanova3 t1_j7mx1qm wrote

You're making the opposite point you think you're making.

−1