Poppy Watch

[tyssam5]

One of the weird things about World War I is that so many of the main combatants no longer exist. Imperial Russia fell, partly as a consequence of the war. The Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian Empires fell. The British Empire won, but it's gone now. The Edwardians would not recognise their country now. No how, no way. Germany - well. Resilient bunch, the Germans. 

German empire is gone too.

[seafoid]

One of the weird things about World War I is that so many of the main combatants no longer exist. Imperial Russia fell, partly as a consequence of the war. The Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian Empires fell. The British Empire won, but it's gone now. The Edwardians would not recognise their country now. No how, no way. Germany - well. Resilient bunch, the Germans. 

the Germans lost one third of the land they had in 1914....

[rosnarun]

not gone but modernised
germany carries more influence now then pre WW1 or  WW2 where as england's empire and influence has come down to Scotland wales cornwall and NI and smattering of Islands

[Evil Genius]

A great programme on Churchill totally debunked him as the great war leader, referred to his failure in WWI

I could have sworn I watched the programme you're referring to, except that I drew rather different conclusions from the one I saw.

First of all, it did not "totally debunk him as the great war leader" [sic], since it did not address that topic. Rather it analysed his record as a military strategist (or more specifically one campaign from WWII).

On which point the programme was correct - the attack on "Europe's soft underbelly" (Italy) was indeed a grievous error, if not quite on a par with eg the total shambles which was Gallipolli in WWI. 

However, Churchill's greatness during WWII lay not in his military prowess (or lack of), but rather in his political achievements, which stand comparison with every other political leader anywhere in the entire conflict. In fact, had it not been for his leadership of the anti-appeasement faction in Britain during the late 30's and early war years, it is very likely that the UK would either have concluded a Treaty with Hitler to keep us out of the war entirely, or have capitulated during 1939/40 under Nazi pressure.

And had that happened, there is every possibility that, freed from the need to fight a war on two fronts, Germany would successfully have conquered the USSR, before the USA was eventually drawn into the War in the Far East after Pearl Harbour.

Which is not to say that Britain, or even the USA, "won" WWII - if anything, that accolade must go to the Soviets. But had the UK not held the line until September 1940, and the USSR had consequently been beaten , the world would have been a very different place, and not in a good way.

And considering few if any of Britain's strategic interests were served by getting involved in a (continental) European war, and very many Britons were war-weary after WWI, Churchill's gargantuan efforts were absolutely critical to buying the USSR time.

... he [Churchill] was too afraid to invade Europe via France as on D Day.  He preferred to attack the soft underbelly of Nazi Europe through North Africa and Italy losing tens of thousands of allied soldiers on the way.

He was not "afraid" to attack Western Europe before June 1944, or anything like it.

Rather his strategy was informed by two overriding considerations. First, he prioritised his country's interests in defending Egypt/Suez (i.e. the route to India and the Far Eastern colonies) over Britain's need to take the war directly to Germany. And whether you think this misjudged or not, the fact that he managed to persuade the USA to go along with this shows the power of his personal leadership.

Second, he decided - entirely correctly, imo - that the Allies were simply not capable of launching a successful D-Day invasion before the Summer of 1944, due to a basic shortage of men and arms etc. And on this point, both FDR and Eisenhower completely agreed, which was why they joined Churchill in resisting until they were ready the increasingly desperate demands of Stalin.

Only forced into D Day by Stalin and Americans!

Utter tosh!
Churchill was as desperate as anyone to see the Nazi menace destroyed once and for all, not least Stalin (duped into the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of August 1939) or the Americans (outside the War entirely until December 1041). Rather, as I argue above, he showed rather surer military judgement in concluding that any earlier Allied invasion of France would be likely to fail. As it was, June 1944 was close enough.

Moreover, it is short-sighted to blame Churchill for delaying D Day until 1944, whilst ignoring three other of his contributions to relieve Stalin/Continental Europe.
The first of these were the Arctic Convoys, where the British Royal and Merchant Navies suffered terrible losses and privations to keep open a vital lifeline to Murmansk and Archangel;
Second was the North African campaign (and Italy), which drew considerable German resources away from the Eastern Front;
Third was the Allied air bombing campaign of Germany, which notwithstanding the terrible civilian casualties, was credited by Speer no less, as having drawn critical military resources from the attack on the USSR. (I think he described it as "thousands of anti-aircraft guns and hundreds of thousands of men").

All of which, imo, needs to be considered when assessing Churchill's determination to attack the Germans through Italy in 1943.

[red hander]

'not least Stalin (duped into the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of August 1939), or the Americans (outside the War entirely until December 1041)'

I'd love to hear your take on just how Stalin was duped into anything, let alone his pact with Adolf ... I'd also be interested to hear why the Normans didn't shit themselves and think twice about crossing the Channel considering the Yanks were itching to get at them

[red hander]

I see Ryanair's Michael O'Leary wearing one on the telly this morning.

Just when you thought you couldn't hate the wee bastard any more than you do already

[BennyCake]

I see Ryanair's Michael O'Leary wearing one on the telly this morning.

Just when you thought you couldn't hate the wee b**tard any more than you do already

O'Leary is a businessman. He can't afford to compromise his profits.

But the poppy fascism is back again. People being forced to support the war machine.

[Evil Genius]

'not least Stalin (duped into the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of August 1939), or the Americans (outside the War entirely until December 1041)'

I'd love to hear your take on just how Stalin was duped into anything, let alone his pact with Adolf ... I'd also be interested to hear why the Normans didn't shit themselves and think twice about crossing the Channel considering the Yanks were itching to get at them

I have no idea what your 'Normans' and 'Yanks' comment is supposed to mean.

But if you think that Stalin wasn't duped, then consider this. Even before WWII broke out, Soviet spies in the West provided credible evidence to Moscow of Hitler's intention to attack the USSR. Subsequently they (and military analysts) became aware that Germany was massing troops near the Soviet border, in preparation for Barbarossa. Stalin did nothing, preferring to believe German assurances that they were being kept there to protect them from Allied attack in the West. When the Nazis did attack, Stalin did not believe it, refusing to mobilise troops to their Western border for days, even as the Germans had crossed it. Indeed it is rumoured that Stalin didn't even leave his Dacha for 3 days, so overwhelmed was he by what he was hearing, leading to further rumours that he suffered a minor nervous breakdown. Most significantly, all those who knew or suspected of Barbarossa were purged, and the official records destroyed.

As for how he was duped/deceived by Hitler, there are a number of theories; for a handy synopsis of some of the more credible recent studies, try this, including this comment:
"Yet whatever Stalin was thinking -- whether he deluded himself or was deluded by Hitler -- the fact remains that he, and he alone, was to blame for the greatest military defeat in Russian history"
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E4D71638F931A25755C0A9639C8B63&pagewanted=1

[red hander]

'not least Stalin (duped into the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of August 1939), or the Americans (outside the War entirely until December 1041)'

I'd love to hear your take on just how Stalin was duped into anything, let alone his pact with Adolf ... I'd also be interested to hear why the Normans didn't shit themselves and think twice about crossing the Channel considering the Yanks were itching to get at them

I have no idea what your 'Normans' and 'Yanks' comment is supposed to mean.

But if you think that Stalin wasn't duped, then consider this. Even before WWII broke out, Soviet spies in the West provided credible evidence to Moscow of Hitler's intention to attack the USSR. Subsequently they (and military analysts) became aware that Germany was massing troops near the Soviet border, in preparation for Barbarossa. When the Nazis attacked, Stalin did not believe it, refusing even to mobilise troops to their Western border for days, even as the Germans had crossed it. Indeed it is rumoured that Stalin didn't even leave his Dacha for 3 days, so overwhelmed was he by what he was hearing, leading to further rumours that he suffered a minor nervous breakdown. Most significantly, all those who knew or suspected of Barbarossa were purged, and the official records destroyed.

As for how he was duped/deceived by Hitler, there are a number of theories; for a handy synopsis of some of the more credible recent studies, try this, including this comment:
"Yet whatever Stalin was thinking -- whether he deluded himself or was deluded by Hitler -- the fact remains that he, and he alone, was to blame for the greatest military defeat in Russian history"
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E4D71638F931A25755C0A9639C8B63&pagewanted=1

Barbarossa happened 2 years after the signing of the pact. The pact suited both the Nazis and the Soviets as it gave Stalin time to build up his war machine to parry the inevitable German invasion. Do you really believe Stalin didn't know what Germany's intentions were? A cursory look at Mein Kampf would have left no one in any doubt about what Adolf was planning (not to mention the information coming from the Soviet spy, still not outed to this day, at the very top of German OKW (military command). Doing a deal with Stalin, his sworn enemy, suited Hitler too as it protected his rear for unleashing war on the west until he was ready to invade the USSR, which was always his intention and is what drove him, as Stalin knew well ... Uncle Joe's reaction as described had more to do with his shock that the Nazis invaded a bit earlier than he had anticipated, not the invasion itself, he knew that was coming all right.

You're a millenia out over Roosevelt declaring war

[Evil Genius]

I could have sworn I watched the programme you're referring to, except that I drew rather different conclusions from the one I saw.

I wasn't drawing my own conclusions I was just repeating the conclusions of Professor David Reynolds.  I don't think you watched the same programme. 

No, I remember the name (Reynolds), it was the same programme.

The blurb on the programme from BBC.......

The British fought the Second World War to defeat Hitler. This film asks why, then, did they spend so much of the conflict battling through North Africa and Italy?

Historian David Reynolds reassesses Winston Churchill's conviction that the Mediterranean was the 'soft underbelly' of Hitler's Europe. Travelling to Egypt and Italian battlefields like Cassino, scene of some of the worst carnage in western Europe, he shows how, in reality, the 'soft underbelly' became a dark and dangerous obsession for Churchill.

A more accurate blurb would be:
"Britain and France declared war on Germany in 1939 to defeat Nazism. But by the time of the Italian campaign in 1943, Japan had already attacked and captured Britain's colonies in the Far East and threatened India, so that Churchill felt compelled to switch his priorities to Egypt and the Suez Canal. But with the USSR demanding that the Allies launch a Second Front in Western Europe, before Churchill and the Americans thought it feasible, he persuaded the USA that by attacking Germany via Italy, the same effect could be achieved. As it happens, he (and the Americans) severely underestimated the difficulty in fighting their way through Italy; nonetheless it satisfied Churchill's other priority, that of protecting Royal Navy access to Suez via the Mediterranean "

But I guess that would have been too long to constitute a "blurb"... 

Reynolds reveals a prime minister very different from the jaw-jutting bulldog of Britain's 'finest hour' in 1940 - a leader who was politically vulnerable at home, desperate to shore up a crumbling British empire abroad, losing faith in his army and even ready to deceive his American allies if it might delay fighting head to head against the Germans in northern France. The film marks the seventieth anniversary of the Battle of El Alamein in 1942.[/i]

Of course Churchill was a different man by 1943 from the man who led the Battle of Britain in 1940 - he was coming up to his 70th Birthday, with heart problems and having just been through three years of almost continuous disaster and defeat. And by the end of the War in 1945, he was completely worn out
No-one now believes any different.
And yes, he was "politically vulnerable at home" - he was the man who was seen as personally responsible for leading Britain into a War which had seen disasters like Dunkirk, Singapore and Tobruk, during which he was having to lead a Coalition Government.
And if he did "lose faith in his army", it was with very good cause, considering that they had lost every significant engagment before El Alamein (Battle of Britain excepted). But the point is that he recognised this, replaced his failing Generals with better men, had the political nous always to maintain the best possible relations with a (not-entirely-reliable) American ally, plus the wisdom and good grace to accept that the USA must eventually take the lead in the liberation of Europe (eg readily agreeing to Eisenhower as Supreme Allied Commander in Europe).
As for his "willingness to deceive his American allies re D Day", there were few world leaders more shifty and duplicitous than FDR(!) and besides, Eisenhower at least recognised the folly of launching D Day before 1944.

But hey, if you want to take your knowledge of Churchill's conduct of the War from a single one hour documentary concentrating on a single campaign, then knock yourself out.

I guess that would be preferable to your seizing upon such "evidence" in order to reinforce your prejudices against one of the greatest of British leaders... 

[Evil Genius]

I see Ryanair's Michael O'Leary wearing one on the telly this morning.

Just when you thought you couldn't hate the wee b**tard any more than you do already

O'Leary is a businessman. He can't afford to compromise his profits.

But the poppy fascism is back again. People being forced to support the war machine.

Do you honestly think that a character like O'Leary would feel compelled to submit to (so-called) poppy fascism?

You know, this guy:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/10/31/ryanairs-oleary-blasts-customer-for-being-bloody-english_n_2048829.html

P.S. Can you imagine the fuss if an English airline chief had muttered some comment about "the bloody Irish"? 

[Evil Genius]

Barbarossa happened 2 years after the signing of the pact.

It suited Stalin because he was taken in by Hitler's offer to carve up central Europe and the Baltics between them, whilst Hitler waged his own war against France and Britain. You know, the war that Germany fought for the two years before Barbarossa...

The pact suited both the Nazis and the Soviets as it gave Stalin time to build up his war machine to parry the inevitable German invasion. Do you really believe Stalin didn't know what Germany's intentions were?

If that [bold] is the case, then why didn't Stalin build up his troop in readiness for the "inevitable" German attack? Why do you think the Germans achieved such stunning, almost unimaginable, success in the early months of Barbarossa? I mean, Stalin didn't even send troops to the Western borders after the Nazis DID invade, for nearly a week ffs!

A cursory look at Mein Kampf would have left no one in any doubt about what Adolf was planning

Stalin was hardly the only political leader to ignore, or be unaware of what Hitler had written in Mein Kampf in 1925 - half the politicians in Germany were taken in by him ffs!

(not to mention the information coming from the Soviet spy, still not outed to this day, at the very top of German OKW (military command).

Stalin had every opportunity to make himself aware of Hitler's true intentions, right up to, and even a few days after(!) Barbarossa was launched.
But whether he had genuinely believed Hitler's assurances, contained in the secret protocol to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, or whether he believed he had outwitted him, he was both unable and unwilling to accept evidence to the contrary coming from his diplomatic, military and intelligence services, since that would have revealed the extent to which he had been duped.
So instead he (typically) resorted to purging and suppressing these 'bearers of bad news', until the Wehrmacht actually were in the Soviet Union and Hitler's intentions were unmistakeable to all.

Doing a deal with Stalin, his sworn enemy, suited Hitler too as it protected his rear for unleashing war on the west until he was ready to invade the USSR, which was always his intention and is what drove him,

Of course it suited Hitler, no-one is denying that. That, after all, is why he readied his armies months, even years in advance for the invasion of the USSR. Unlike Stalin.

... as Stalin knew well

That would be the same Stalin who did virtually nothing during two years to ready the USSR for a Nazi attack from the West, preferring instead to concentrate on his military campaigning against the Japanese in the Far East (see the lead-up to the Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact signed in April 1941).
And might it not be that just as he didn't want to have to fight wars on two fronts, he didn't believe that Hitler would dare to attempt to do so, either? 

Uncle Joe's reaction as described had more to do with his shock that the Nazis invaded a bit earlier than he had anticipated, not the invasion itself, he knew that was coming all right.

"... a bit earlier"?
What, a month? Three months? A year?
I'm afraid you're falling for Stalin apologists' post-war revisionism, and pretty desperate revisionism at that, for the simple fact is, the German attack took Stalin completely by surprise.
Which is not the same as claiming that he believed Hitler could never have gone to war with the USSR, rather that in June 1941, the possibility seemed so remote as to be capable of being discounted for the foreseeable future.

You're a millenia out over Roosevelt declaring war

Nope, still no idea what you're blethering about, not even the spelling or grammar*.


* - "millenia" [sic] is plural, by the way

[red hander]

'* - "millenia" [sic] is plural, by the way'

US entered the war in 1941, by the way, oh infallible arsehole

[Evil Genius]

'* - "millenia" [sic] is plural, by the way'

US entered the war in 1941, by the way, oh infallible arsehole

Ah right, I see now that I typed "1041", instead of "1941".

I guess that that negates everything I've observed about Churchill, Stalin, Hitler and WWII generally, whilst entirely vindicating you.

Congratulations.

[Wildweasel74]

I See people wearing poppies at work and sold in at work, personally it never bothered me. maybe the fact that it was highjacked for the British military conflicts in recent years, which is strange as it was originated to provide funds for World War one Veterans. Now any conflict involving England now and in the past seemed to be remembered on remembrance day instead of WW1 as it was to be intended