Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > European History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

European History European History Forum - Western and Eastern Europe including the British Isles, Scandinavia, Russia


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 28th, 2017, 11:07 AM   #91
Scholar
 
Joined: Jan 2017
From: Durham
Posts: 843

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Vagamundo View Post
See? that wasn't so hard.

BTW--I know Max Hastings and generally agree with him. I may or may not read the book.
Well, no, I haven't exactly broken my back to do that - but then a cursory glance at google would have provided that information. That was my point.

I actually don't agree with Max Hastings on a lot of what he has to say about WW1, but his commentary on the sources in the run up to D-Day will take some refuting.

Personally, I thought it was commonly accepted that the British and Americans saw things very differently in the run up to D-Day, and that Roosevelt was not a fan of Britain and Churchill wasn't a fan of Roosevelt and what he saw as hypocrisy on the colonial issue.

They co-operated against a common enemy but there was no love between them, and the British Government always wanted Italy to be the place. They went along with it because they needed American help and to attain that help they were left with no option but to submit to American supremacy in terms of planning.

As said, in the end Churchill was dealing with Roosevelt's subordinates.
Peaceful is offline  
Remove Ads
Old December 28th, 2017, 12:28 PM   #92

Haesten's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,352

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peaceful View Post
Well, no, I haven't exactly broken my back to do that - but then a cursory glance at google would have provided that information. That was my point.

I actually don't agree with Max Hastings on a lot of what he has to say about WW1, but his commentary on the sources in the run up to D-Day will take some refuting.

Personally, I thought it was commonly accepted that the British and Americans saw things very differently in the run up to D-Day, and that Roosevelt was not a fan of Britain and Churchill wasn't a fan of Roosevelt and what he saw as hypocrisy on the colonial issue.

They co-operated against a common enemy but there was no love between them, and the British Government always wanted Italy to be the place. They went along with it because they needed American help and to attain that help they were left with no option but to submit to American supremacy in terms of planning.

As said, in the end Churchill was dealing with Roosevelt's subordinates.
FDR was ill, the subordinate was General Marshall who after Dunkirk had the US small arms arsenal on the way to Britain within days of FDR signing the order. Marshall and Bedell-Smith thought they would end up hanging from a lamppost if the US had to mobilise and found to be short of weapons.

MAX HASTINGS: How Churchill was bullied into D-Da - his most triumphant achievement - by the Americans | Daily Mail Online

D-Day would have likely failed if the planning had been left to the US Generals alone, most thought they could supply the army over the beaches as they were doing in the Pacific and there would have been no Mulberries.
Ike was keen on Hobart's Funnies, Bradley wasn't and went for a tried and tested WWI assault on Omaha with nearly the same result. Utah was a lucky fluke with the DDs making it ashore with the first wave and swimming the undefended flooded areas.
Haesten is offline  
Old December 30th, 2017, 12:02 AM   #93

Lord Fairfax's Avatar
Tickling the Dragons tail
 
Joined: Jan 2015
From: Rupert's Land ;)
Posts: 2,413

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Vagamundo View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peaceful View Post
We all make unsubstantiated claims when posting.

And, I don't agree with you.

Tell you what, you take the time to find it for yourself and I'll take your word you've done that in the event you say you have, then I'll provide an authoritative source. How's that?
I'm not Lord Fairfax, but it doesn't work for me. You're asking Lord Fairfax to prove a negative--namely that something you posited is not true. Since you posited it, we are entitled to assume that you have authority to support your position, and it would be much easier and simpler for you to produce it (that is, to prove the positive). Here, when you make a claim and don't back it up, we are entitled to deduce that you can't support it. That doesn't stop a lot of people here from simply making the same claim over and over without authority; it simply stops people like me from believing those claims.

To reiterate, you said in post 55 that "I think it's well documented that Churchill was increasingly marginalised in the months before D-Day." All we're asking for is to see the documentation.
Thanks David for the reply.

Yes, in fact the Mods have told us the expected etiquette on the forum, if you post an assertive statement you are expected to provide your source if requested.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Belisarius View Post
If a poster is challenged on sources and citations and fails to provide any evidence to support their claims it is not an automatic cause for Moderator intervention, if however they continue to repeat baseless allegations, this can contravene forum rules and guidelines. The best course is to report the poster and we'll make a determination. We can then insist they provide sources or withdraw from the discussion. It's not something we do very often as it is self evident if you cannot back up your arguments with sources and evidence, your argument lacks credibility.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naomasa298 View Post
If you challenge someone on their sources, and they fail to provide them, it exposes the weak foundation of their arguments. Most readers without an agenda will recognise that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Comet View Post
I can totally see where you are coming from. However, think about what citing your sources actually does. Sometimes its not about proving a point, but keeping the discussion fluid. Sometimes sources are cited in order to keep the peace...particularly in controversial topics. Finally, there are professionals and students who use our cite for many differing reasons. When we encourage the citing of sources, it demonstrates our importance to academic integrity on the forum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by diddyriddick View Post
Usurpation, no. But the thread was initiated independently. We believe that the free exchange of ideas is the best way to learn about history, so we're not going to require citations. But being unable to produce sources when asked speaks to a poster's credibility.

It seems to me that asking for sources is a quite sensible thing to do. We've all seen outlandish claims, and rather than giving currency to such posts, verifying the validity of said posts with sources is the only way to debunk them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naomasa298
"Just Google it" is NOT an adequate response.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Comet View Post
There is nothing that I hate more...when someone tells someone else to "read". Let me make this clear for you:

You made statements that have not been supported. It is your job to support your own argument.
Lord Fairfax is offline  
Old December 30th, 2017, 01:20 PM   #94

Lord Fairfax's Avatar
Tickling the Dragons tail
 
Joined: Jan 2015
From: Rupert's Land ;)
Posts: 2,413

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peaceful View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Vagamundo View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peaceful View Post
As an introduction I'd recommend:

Finest Years: Churchill As Warlord - Max Hastings.
See? that wasn't so hard.

BTW--I know Max Hastings and generally agree with him. I may or may not read the book.
Well, no, I haven't exactly broken my back to do that - but then a cursory glance at google would have provided that information. That was my point.
In fact, a cursory glance at google doesn't bring up a "well documented fact", it brings up opinions of Max Hastings, who is far from the definitive source.

"Max Hastings Churchill marginalized" does bring up some results, from his book with rather unfavorable opinions of many of the war's leading figures, from Churchill to Marshall, FDR, King and Monty.


Contrary to your claim -
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peaceful View Post
And, quite right too as he didn't exactly have form for getting things right
Hastings comments that Churchill's opposition to American plans for a landing in France during 1942 or 1943 were well founded.

Quote:
In fact, as Max Hastings argues, Churchillís obduracy on this point was not entirely misguided. It saved the Allies from an ill-conceived and premature attempt to invade France in 1943, which would certainly have ended in disaster.
Finest Years: Churchill as Warlord 1940-1945, By Max Hastings | The Independent
Lord Fairfax is offline  
Old December 30th, 2017, 02:05 PM   #95

redcoat's Avatar
Hiding behind the sofa
 
Joined: Nov 2010
From: Stockport Cheshire UK
Posts: 6,861

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peaceful View Post

But as we're having a discussion surrounding an historical event then I'd argue that asking someone to give you the research can speak of a lack of knowledge on the subject, or/and a lack of a willingness to dig farther.
On historical forums if asked for a source it is normal to respond with a source. If you don't other posters have to regard your claim as best unsubstantiated or at worst complete nonsense.
redcoat is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > European History

Tags
biggest, britain, loser, wwii



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Osvobozhdenie/Liberation - Biggest WWII Film Ever Earl_of_Rochester History in Films and on Television 13 August 25th, 2017 01:19 PM
Biggest weapons and equipment mistakes in WWII Number24 War and Military History 339 July 17th, 2016 03:47 AM
What was the bigger loss for Britain? WWI or WWII? thesaintoftheinternet European History 81 July 30th, 2015 02:41 PM
Biggest Egos in WWII FailWhale War and Military History 18 January 18th, 2015 01:26 PM
Italy Versus Britain Without Commonwealth or US Help in WWII, Who Would Win? Italian Commando Speculative History 421 June 22nd, 2013 03:31 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.