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, 10:07 AM   #91
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2017
From: Durham
Posts: 1,061

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, 11:28 AM   #92

Haesten's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,528

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 29th, 2017, 11:02 PM   #93

Lord Fairfax's Avatar
Tickling the Dragons tail
 
Joined: Jan 2015
From: Rupert's Land ;)
Posts: 2,830

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 online now  
Old December 30th, 2017, 12:20 PM   #94

Lord Fairfax's Avatar
Tickling the Dragons tail
 
Joined: Jan 2015
From: Rupert's Land ;)
Posts: 2,830

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 online now  
Old December 30th, 2017, 01:05 PM   #95

redcoat's Avatar
Hiding behind the sofa
 
Joined: Nov 2010
From: Stockport Cheshire UK
Posts: 7,185

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  
Old January 26th, 2018, 10:59 AM   #96
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2013
From: San Antonio, Tx
Posts: 9,151

I always understood that Roosevelt and Churchill were pretty close. Doubtless there were areas of disagreement, some sharp, between them but that’s fairly normal in any relationship. I understood that Churchill was pretty nervous about Overlord - who wouldn't be? - as I’m sure everyone involved probably was. Churchill was, I think, closer to more immediate input into operations (if only by dint of geographical proximity), more, certainly, than Roosevelt who I believe pretty much allowed General Marshall to call the shots militarily.

In short, I take issue with some of Peaceful’s assertions regarding the relationship between Churchillan and Roosevelt.
royal744 is offline  
Old January 26th, 2018, 12:53 PM   #97

Lord Fairfax's Avatar
Tickling the Dragons tail
 
Joined: Jan 2015
From: Rupert's Land ;)
Posts: 2,830

Quote:
Originally Posted by royal744 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peaceful View Post
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.
I always understood that Roosevelt and Churchill were pretty close. Doubtless there were areas of disagreement, some sharp, between them but thatís fairly normal in any relationship. I understood that Churchill was pretty nervous about Overlord - who wouldn't be? - as Iím sure everyone involved probably was. Churchill was, I think, closer to more immediate input into operations (if only by dint of geographical proximity), more, certainly, than Roosevelt who I believe pretty much allowed General Marshall to call the shots militarily.

In short, I take issue with some of Peacefulís assertions regarding the relationship between Churchillan and Roosevelt.
Royal is correct, while there were differences between FDR and Churchill, FDR was supportive of the British war effort and the two leaders planned much in concert.

FDR sided with Churchill in selling old US armament to Britain in 1940, accepted the British position on Gymnast vs Sledgehammer in 1942, and augmenting British shipping in Europe in 1943.
In each case he overruled Marshall or his senior service chiefs to support the British - hardly the mark of an antagonistic relationship
Lord Fairfax is online now  
Old January 26th, 2018, 01:00 PM   #98

Tulius's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2016
From: Portugal
Posts: 3,810

Quote:
Originally Posted by redcoat View Post
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.
Well said.
Tulius is offline  
Old January 26th, 2018, 01:13 PM   #99
Archivist
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: Ich bin ein Stettiner
Posts: 197

Well, I would say Poland was the biggest loser. ~20% of population lost(biggest losses in %), some of the land lost, independence regained in 1989. Capital city destroyed in almost 100%, almost all other cities badly damaged, infrastructure in shambles.

Most of the elites killed. Almost all scientists, university professors, leaders etc - killed. So many great pieces of art, literature, culture and history destroyed.

Pretty much whole country completely devastated, and after 1945 there was another period of time of suffering.

While I symphatize with suffering of British people I would say they didn't lose even 10% of what Poland lost. Colonies would break away anyway. British islands were almost untouched and while I know about german bombings it was nothing compared to total destruction of Warsaw and other cities. Casualties in civilians were very low in comparison too.

French was damaged more, but still - occupation was laughable in comparison to central and eastern Europe, same with damage to cities and infrastructure. Don't forget that French people were almost as high in hierarchy as Aryan Germans while Slavs were subhumans destined to be extinct.

I don't think there is other country that can be compared to Poland in terms of 'losing' this war. Soviet Union? Yes, damages in infrastructure and population were tremendous but at the end at least country itself gained something(land, resources, political force). Baltic states? Maybe... they were screwed pretty badly too, although their cities weren't destroyed AS much as polish ones, but still damages and loss in population were huge.

And of course don't forget about Germany. Sure, they reaped what they sowed but still - they lose some land, cities were destroyed and eastern part lost it's independence.
Kozas is offline  
Old January 26th, 2018, 03:56 PM   #100
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2013
From: San Antonio, Tx
Posts: 9,151

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Fairfax View Post
Royal is correct, while there were differences between FDR and Churchill, FDR was supportive of the British war effort and the two leaders planned much in concert.

FDR sided with Churchill in selling old US armament to Britain in 1940, accepted the British position on Gymnast vs Sledgehammer in 1942, and augmenting British shipping in Europe in 1943.
In each case he overruled Marshall or his senior service chiefs to support the British - hardly the mark of an antagonistic relationship
One clue could be the fact that the US and Great Britain combined their Chiefs of Staff during the war. How many times has this happened in the past?
royal744 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 12:19 PM
Biggest weapons and equipment mistakes in WWII Number24 War and Military History 339 July 17th, 2016 02:47 AM
What was the bigger loss for Britain? WWI or WWII? thesaintoftheinternet European History 81 July 30th, 2015 01:41 PM
Biggest Egos in WWII FailWhale War and Military History 18 January 18th, 2015 12:26 PM
Italy Versus Britain Without Commonwealth or US Help in WWII, Who Would Win? Italian Commando Speculative History 421 June 22nd, 2013 02:31 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.