is ward churchill a reliable source

[geni]

They didn't have to. They already had NKVD agents Kim Philby, Guy Burgess, Doanld Maclean, and Anthony Blunt doing their bidding in England.

But are you actually implying that the German threat to England was superficial?

Compared to the red army?

Germany had no way to cross the channel and war with Russia didn't work out.

Japan was a problem in the east although one that could at a pinch have been countered through the mass mobilisation of India.

U-boats were something of an issue but without land forces in europe the amount needed to be imported would have been lower.

Other than U-boats the only dirrect threat Germany posed to Britian's core interests was the long standing problem of a united europe.

 

[Cicero]

Compared to the red army?

Why would the Soviets even want the tiny island? But what about the British that were recruited by the Soviets to do their bidding in the U.K.?

Germany had no way to cross the channel and war with Russia didn't work out.

They didn't have to march up the steps of White Hall in 1940 to effectively remove Britain as any type of threat to their conquests in Europe. It wasn't until the Americans were using the island as a their embarkation point for the Normandy Invasion that Germany saw England as a threat.

Japan was a problem in the east although one that could at a pinch have been countered through the mass mobilisation of India.

When was that going to happen?

U-boats were something of an issue but without land forces in europe the amount needed to be imported would have been lower.

Those U-boats put a lot of the Lend Lease materials from the U.S. on the bottom of the Atlantic. What was Britain going to fight with without this equipment?

Other than U-boats the only dirrect threat Germany posed to Britian's core interests was the long standing problem of a united europe.

If Britain was not impressed with any threat that Germany posed to it, why was Churchill so gung-ho to have the Americans start a 2nd front against Germany as quickly as possible?

 

[geni]

Why would the Soviets even want the tiny island? But what about the British that were recruited by the Soviets to do their bidding in the U.K.?

Limited in scope. None of their agents with memebers of the goverment.

They didn't have to march up the steps of White Hall in 1940 to effectively remove Britain as any type of threat to their conquests in Europe. It wasn't until the Americans were using the island as a their embarkation point for the Normandy Invasion that Germany saw England as a threat.

Britian's core interests were not in the european mainland.

When was that going to happen?

If japan made it into india to a significant extent.

Those U-boats put a lot of the Lend Lease materials from the U.S. on the bottom of the Atlantic. What was Britain going to fight with without this equipment?

It doesn't take that much material to defend an island.

If Britain was not impressed with any threat that Germany posed to it, why was Churchill so gung-ho to have the Americans start a 2nd front against Germany as quickly as possible?

Because he was Churchill.

 

[Cicero]

Limited in scope. None of their agents with memebers of the goverment.

Philby was head of the Russian desk at MI6. Who needs an MP when you have a guy who can deceive his superiors about information damaging to Moscow, not to mention passing on top secret info to Moscow.

Britian's core interests were not in the european mainland.

Britain lost it's core interests by the end of the war anyway. The only thing they still got is the Falkland Islands.

If japan made it into india to a significant extent.

General Percival's surrender of nearly 140,000 personnel in Singapore probably didn't inspire India to throw in with the Brits.

It doesn't take that much material to defend an island.

Considering that the island was defenseless to V1 and V2 rockets, I doubt that the War Ministry agreed with that appraisal. But if it didn't take much material, why did it take Britain until 2006 (six years past the due date) to pay off the $4 billion that was loaned in 1945? Imagine if we wanted the whole $30 billion given to the U.K. between1940 and September 1945.

Because he was Churchill.

Without Churchill, Londoners would be marveling at Albert Speer's architecture.

 

[drkitten]

Philby was head of the Russian desk at MI6. Who needs an MP when you have a guy who can deceive his superiors about information damaging to Moscow, not to mention passing on top secret info to Moscow.

Who needs an MP when you have an intelligence officer?

How about "a person who wants to effectively influence government policy"?

 

[Cicero]

Who needs an MP when you have an intelligence officer?

How about "a person who wants to effectively influence government policy"?

You mean like Willie Gallacher, Communist MP?

 

[geni]

Philby was head of the Russian desk at MI6. Who needs an MP when you have a guy who can deceive his superiors about information damaging to Moscow, not to mention passing on top secret info to Moscow.

It's suriveable.

Britain lost it's core interests by the end of the war anyway. The only thing they still got is the Falkland Islands.

In 1945 most of the empire was intact.

General Percival's surrender of nearly 140,000 personnel in Singapore probably didn't inspire India to throw in with the Brits.

I don't think britian would really have considered asking for their opinion.

Considering that the island was defenseless to V1 and V2 rockets, I doubt that the War Ministry agreed with that appraisal. But if it didn't take much material, why did it take Britain until 2006 (six years past the due date) to pay off the $4 billion that was loaned in 1945? Imagine if we wanted the whole $30 billion given to the U.K. between1940 and September 1945.

Broadly speaking because the UK decided to invade europe.

Without Churchill, Londoners would be marveling at Albert Speer's architecture.

Again Germany had no real chance of a sucessful invasion of the UK.

Without Churchill Gallipoli would just be a place in Turkey and the whole Italian campain mess wouldn't have happened (it isn't the soft underbelly when it it is full of mountians).

Alturnatives to Churchill could have been found and the loss of Attlee would likely have been far more problematical.

 

[Cicero]

It's suriveable.

Britain was only interested in surviving, not thriving?

In 1945 most of the empire was intact.

You seem to be substituting British pride for the cold hard facts. Not only did GB not come away from WWII with any additional gains, it lost colonies and was mired in debt and nearly bankrupt. Between 1945 and 1965, the number of people under British rule outside of GB itself fell from 700 million to 5 million.

I don't think britian would really have considered asking for their opinion.

Forcing other countries to fight for an oppressive ruler wasn't a model for success in the 1940's. Just ask Italy for verification.

Broadly speaking because the UK decided to invade europe.

Again. If Britain wasn't threatened by Germany, why not just fall back and sit out the war after the Battle of Britain? If you actually believe that Germany was getting weaker after 1940, and their ability to mount Operation Sea Lion at a latter date was impossible after the invasion of Russia, why bother with a 2nd front?

Again Germany had no real chance of a sucessful invasion of the UK.

Again. Germany need not have invaded to get the British government to acquiesce to their plans. The Germans already occupied Jersey and Guernsey. Why couldn't the Brits defend them?

Without Churchill Gallipoli would just be a place in Turkey and the whole Italian campain mess wouldn't have happened (it isn't the soft underbelly when it it is full of mountians).

Nobody said Churchill never screwed the pooch. The crap about the "soft underbelly of Europe" cost enormous Allied casualties.

Alturnatives to Churchill could have been found and the loss of Attlee would likely have been far more problematical.

If there was somebody other than Churchill ready to enter the breech after Chamberlain, they would have come forward. What other politician in GB could have manipulated FDR as well as Churchill? Not to mention Churchill was hip to the Soviet threat long before FDR.

I don't see any argument you put forward that negates the fact that Americans pulled British chestnuts out of the fire in WWII.

 

[geni]

Britain was only interested in surviving, not thriving?

Going by it's aproach to WW2 yes.

You seem to be substituting British pride for the cold hard facts. Not only did GB not come away from WWII with any additional gains, it lost colonies and was mired in debt and nearly bankrupt. Between 1945 and 1965, the number of people under British rule outside of GB itself fell from 700 million to 5 million.

Well yes thats what happens if you are the UK and fight a land war in europe.

Without WW2 the empire would likely have lasted a bit longer.

Forcing other countries to fight for an oppressive ruler wasn't a model for success in the 1940's. Just ask Italy for verification.

Stalin would disagree.

Again. If Britain wasn't threatened by Germany, why not just fall back and sit out the war after the Battle of Britain? If you actually believe that Germany was getting weaker after 1940, and their ability to mount Operation Sea Lion at a latter date was impossible after the invasion of Russia, why bother with a 2nd front?

Pride mostly. With the labout party almostly entirely backing further war and most of the conservatives takeing the same poisition other courses of action became an imposibility. Still the option was considered.

Again. Germany need not have invaded to get the British government to acquiesce to their plans. The Germans already occupied Jersey and Guernsey. Why couldn't the Brits defend them?

It would probably have been posible to defend them but it wasn't considered worthwhile. They are a lot closer to france than the UK so any defence would largely have been without air support. Getting supplies in would have expensive. That being the case withdrawing from them was the sensible option (very sensible as it turned out Hitler wasted a lot of resources on preparing to defend them).

If there was somebody other than Churchill ready to enter the breech after Chamberlain, they would have come forward.

If only politics were so simple. The existance of Churchill made it pretty much inposible for any other very pro war conservative to come forward.

What other politician in GB could have manipulated FDR as well as Churchill? Not to mention Churchill was hip to the Soviet threat long before FDR.

It was unforunate that Attlee was in the wrong party.