# Churchill vs Roosevelt



## Brian G Turner (May 22, 2016)

A new book - and accompanying article on the Daily Mail website, claims that Roosevelt had to force the issue of the D-Day landings, because Churchill was adamant instead in going through Italy to Germany:
How Churchill nearly lost WW2


----------



## Ray McCarthy (May 22, 2016)

Roosevelt in general had many plus attributes over Churchill, though did a lot of "bad" things too. It was a pity he died before the end of the war.

Also a pity USA continued to supply Italy 1939 -1941 and maintain plenty of links with Germany. 
UK & USA should have jointly entered war. UK though wasn't ready in 1938 which is why they had the appearance of appeasing the Nazis.


----------



## BAYLOR (May 22, 2016)

Ray McCarthy said:


> Roosevelt in general had many plus attributes over Churchill, though did a lot of "bad" things too. It was a pity he died before the end of the war.
> 
> Also a pity USA continued to supply Italy 1939 -1941 and maintain plenty of links with Germany.
> UK & USA should have jointly entered war. UK though wasn't ready in 1938 which is why they had the appearance of appeasing the Nazis.



Unfortunately, Roosevelt had to contend with a very powerful and influential Isolationist movement which dogged him up up until December 7th 1941.


----------



## BAYLOR (May 22, 2016)

Brian Turner said:


> A new book - and accompanying article on the Daily Mail website, claims that Roosevelt had to force the issue of the D-Day landings, because Churchill was adamant instead in going through Italy to Germany:
> How Churchill nearly lost WW2



It's possible if The Us and Uk  had taken all of Italy  and hit Germany from that direction the Reich still could have lost the war, even if Russia bailed .


----------



## The Big Peat (May 22, 2016)

Brian Turner said:


> A new book - and accompanying article on the Daily Mail website, claims that Roosevelt had to force the issue of the D-Day landings, because Churchill was adamant instead in going through Italy to Germany:
> How Churchill nearly lost WW2



I thought this was generally accepted. The Americans were a lot more determined to take the fight to Europe than we were. Its certainly how I remember learning it during my MA, although that was a few years ago and the memory is slipping now...


----------



## Ray McCarthy (May 22, 2016)

The Big Peat said:


> I thought this was generally accepted.


Yes, I think it is. I read it years ago.



BAYLOR said:


> It's possible if The Us and Uk had taken all of Italy and hit Germany from that direction the Reich still could have lost the war, even if Russia bailed .


Of course the Reich would have lost. Russia would have ended up at the English Channel if UK & USA had done nothing.
As it was Russia was the major factor in winning in Europe. USA made it shorter. If the USA had not entered in Pacific, then eventually USSR + China would have won there.


----------



## psikeyhackr (Jun 17, 2022)

Time to practice necromancy. Arise ye ancient electronic tome.

I just finished:

*Winston Churchill: His Times, His Crimes* by Tariq Ali 









						Winston Churchill: His Times, His Crimes (Hardcover) | The Elliott Bay Book Company
					

A coruscating portrait of Britain’s greatest imperialist The modern Churchill cult is out of control, closing down debate and encouraging support for twenty-first-century wars. The wartime leader has become a household god for many, preserving an antiquated vision of Britain still shared by all...




					www.elliottbaybook.com
				




This so called biography has so much historical information about Churchill's times it is more historical than biographical. I think it is really good for understanding the decline of the British Empire since the Victorian Age to the 60s and the global neocolonialism of the US.


----------



## Foxbat (Jun 17, 2022)

I've often wondered if the failed Dardanelles campaign in WW1 (which he pushed for as 1st Sea Lord) left Churchill with a need to prove his strategic vision and this manifested itself in his drive to attack through Italy in WW2


----------



## Christine Wheelwright (Jun 17, 2022)

Foxbat said:


> I've often wondered if the failed Dardanelles campaign in WW1 (which he pushed for as 1st Sea Lord) left Churchill with a need to prove his strategic vision and this manifested itself in his drive to attack through Italy in WW2


Perhaps, but not exactly.  If he felt a sense of responsibility for the debacle of Gallipoli he may have been reluctant to repeat a landing by sea.  For sure the Americans had to push this course of action.  So a sense of remorse rather than a drive to prove strategic vision?


----------



## Le Panda du Mal (Jun 17, 2022)

Nothing says "strategic vision" like invading from the bottom of a mountainous peninsula. With his numerous military failures, I'd say Churchill is a great example of how some people "fail up" in decadent empires. This is to say nothing about his monstrous crimes.


----------



## Christine Wheelwright (Jun 17, 2022)

Le Panda du Mal said:


> Nothing says "strategic vision" like invading from the bottom of a mountainous peninsula. With his numerous military failures, I'd say Churchill is a great example of how some people "fail up" in decadent empires. This is to say nothing about his monstrous crimes.


"Monstrous crimes" is debatable, although I agree a case can be made.  Churchill is perhaps the perfect demonstration that we need to evaluate historical figures according to the sum of their actions.  I think he qualifies as a hero if we approach him this way.  Regarding the empire; it was formed through luck and the tenacity of the ordinary man rather than clever strategy or great leadership (note: read the Flashman novels to get a feel for this).  Britain has traditionally struggled with the concept of meritocracy.  Even now you see it, with a sequence of Eton-educated Prime Ministers (Johnson, Cameron....many before).


----------



## psikeyhackr (Jun 18, 2022)

This is the annoying and sometimes fascinating thing about HISTORY.






The same events can be presented in different ways and you would have to spend ages researching details to try to determine if one side is biasing the information.  They might both be in different areas. Pain in the ass!

Tariq didn't tell us about Winston losing his appendix. And does not the great line:

Lady Astor: If I were your wife I would poison your coffee.

WC: Madam, if I were your husband I'd drink it.

He did have style. Except when he got hit by a car in the US. LOL


----------



## psikeyhackr (Jun 18, 2022)

Christine Wheelwright said:


> (note: read the Flashman novels to get a feel for this).



Are these what you mean?









						Flashman and the Seawolf · Robert Brightwell
					

Flashman and the Sea Wolf Following the popularity of the memoirs of Harry Flashman, the Victorian scoundrel who got himself embroiled in many events of his age, this book introduces a new generation of the family: Thomas Flashman, whose career covers the Napoleonic and Georgian era. This first...



					robertbrightwell.com
				












						Harry Flashman - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org


----------



## Pyan (Jun 18, 2022)

Le Panda du Mal said:


> Nothing says "strategic vision" like invading from the bottom of a mountainous peninsula. With his numerous military failures, I'd say Churchill is a great example of how some people "fail up" in decadent empires. This is to say nothing about his monstrous crimes.


Can I suggest you read up on the origins and conduct of Gallipoli before making sweeping statements like this? It's generally regarded by serious historians (Marder, Hastings _et al_) that if the forcing of the Dardanelles had been successful, it would have shortened the war on the Western Front by nearly two years, saving countless Allied lives, freeing up the supplies to and from Russia, and possibly stopped the Russian Revolution. This was what the strategic vision was about.


----------



## Pyan (Jun 18, 2022)

psikeyhackr said:


> Are these what you mean?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No, no,* not *the Robert Brightwell books, which bear the same resemblance to the original George MacDonald Fraser books as the Brian Herbert and Kevin J. Anderson 'sequels' do to Dune. The phrase "cashing in" springs to mind...

The Flashman Papers - Wikipedia


----------



## BAYLOR (Jun 18, 2022)

psikeyhackr said:


> This is the annoying and sometimes fascinating thing about HISTORY.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That  one is good but. I   like Churchill's exchange with Bessie Braddock even better.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Jun 18, 2022)

The Big Peat said:


> I thought this was generally accepted. The Americans were a lot more determined to take the fight to Europe than we were. Its certainly how I remember learning it during my MA, although that was a few years ago and the memory is slipping now...


Yes, it was a delicate time for Western Allied Strategic planning (early 1943). 

Firstly Roosevelt had to fight off the 'Pacific first' side of his military - by going through with Operation Torch he had pushed the US into focusing on Germany. But Torch had been somewhat delayed - the Germans and Italians had been tenacious in defence and had been able to hold onto Tunisia when the winter rains came, thus lengthening the fall of Axis Africa by a few months. So by the time of the final surrender came, a summer invasion of France was incredibly close. 

Yes, people like the US chief-of-staff Marshall wanted a '43 invasion of France (If you look at the plan, it looks like a very much underpowered Overlord) But others, mainly the British were not keen. Why? 

Well in the first half of 1943 the battle of the North Atlantic was still going strong. the UK's main logistic line was still threatened. Starting a major French offensive while the U-boats were still effective was very risky. The U-boats needed to be neutered. 

Secondly, air superiority needed to be won so that interdiction (blowing up train lines, roads, and other military targets to support any land invasion) of Nazi Europe could be carried out. As of early 1943 there had not been a 'solution' to this. 

And I think, rightly, that the British thought that the original US '43 plan was too weak and the Germans still quite potent (the build up at Kursk demonstrates this), there was a good chance that the Germans could have driven the invaders back into the sea. 

-

So instead they suggested for 1943, Italy. Why?

It would divert _some _German units from the Eastern Front, nominally helping the Soviets. It could take Italy out of the war. (Although it was unclear at the start exactly when or how this would happen.) The forces for the invasion were more-or-less already in the theatre, sitting in Tunisia - the operation was doable and sort-of 'opened a second front'. And clearing Italy out of the Mediterranean would  essentially fully protect supply convoys using Suez - logistics was important!

-

Even so, when the US and Britain tried to think strategically as Panzer Armee Africa was being fought, it wasn't clear exactly what to do next. I get the impression that the US chiefs wanted to be aggressive and risky, and were willing to spill a lot of blood to achieve this, whereas the British were cautious and wanted to minimise casualties, and ensure that the big push onto the continent would definitely succeed. The British experience of WW1, and the massive casualties endured,  was clearly in the minds of British military planners 

In the event, Italy did drop out relatively quickly, after Sicily was conquered. The U-boats were effectively controlled by mid-43, but it took the introduction of the P51 Mustang with Rolls-Royce engine* and a concentrated effect to blunt the Luftwaffe in early 44. That meant that by early summer of 1944, Britain was bursting at the seams with men and military equipment & air superiority that would give the Allies a much bigger advantage against a somewhat weaker German army (Kursk failing and the resultant Soviet offensives afterwards really removing any German offensive capability.) 

One could argue that the allies were somewhat lucky in how the various elements of all of the above came together, but the risk of going all-in for a '43 invasion of France and failing, which could have lengthened the war by a year or more. 

======================

* I simplify - there were other elements that were just as important. Allied pilots had way more time in the air compared with German ones, partly because of Axis oil shortages.


----------



## Foxbat (Jun 18, 2022)

The Dieppe raid in ‘42 gave the Brits a bloody nose as well as a bitter learning opportunity. This, perhaps, goes some way to explain their caution on opening up a second front in France.


----------



## Valtharius (Jun 18, 2022)

Pyan said:


> Can I suggest you read up on the origins and conduct of Gallipoli before making sweeping statements like this? It's generally regarded by serious historians (Marder, Hastings _et al_) that if the forcing of the Dardanelles had been successful, it would have shortened the war on the Western Front by nearly two years, saving countless Allied lives, freeing up the supplies to and from Russia, and possibly stopped the Russian Revolution. This was what the strategic vision was about.


To add, he also suffered a serious blow to his reputation as a result of Gallipoli. He had to resign from the government and his involvement in the debacle was used as an excuse to ignore his warnings about Hitler years later. He did not in any sense "fail up".


----------



## psikeyhackr (Jun 18, 2022)

Braddock: Winston, you are drunk.

Churchill: Yes I am. And you, Bessie, are ugly. But I shall be sober in the morning, and you will still be ugly.

1967 2 years after Winston's death.


----------



## BAYLOR (Jun 19, 2022)

Both men saved the world.


----------



## paranoid marvin (Jun 19, 2022)

For the US and UK, D Day was easily the most risky operation of the war in Europe. There were many reasons why the operation would fail, and few were it would succeed. A likely scenario was that the Allies wouldn't make it off the beaches, the worst being that they would land and then be trapped, leaving thousands captured and much of the invasion ordnance destroyed or in the hands of the Germans. They'd already established a foothold in Italy by that time, and a far safer bet was to consolidate and reinforce that front. It would have made the Western assault on Germany much more arduous and prolonged the war, but if DDay had failed, it would have been catastrophic for the Allies.


----------

