Who was WWII's most important leader?

[hooligan x]

Hey there, armchair historians. In preparation of a campaign I am working on, I have to ask: Which leader do you think was most instrumental in defeating Germany? You know, besides Hitler.

[McCoy]

Re: Who was WWII's most important leader?

 

Whoever in Japan had the bright idea of attacking Pearl Harbor.

[jtelson]

Re: Who was WWII's most important leader?

 

Dion Fortune?

 

http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/f/dion-fortune/magical-battle-of-britain.htm

[Trebuchet]

Re: Who was WWII's most important leader?

 

Winston Churchill.

 

FDR provided the brawn, but Churchill was the heart and soul of the Allies.

[Vondy]

Re: Who was WWII's most important leader?

 

I'm with Treb.

 

Churchill. Without him the war in Europe would have been over before the US was even involved. His spirit kept England afloat when it should have rightfully folded/fallen and provided a platform for the allies to work from. The US provided economic and military might - and FDR had the foresight to plan ahead - but if you look at some of FDR's most commonly remembered war-time speeches, they're really echoes of Churchill. And Stalin collaborated with the Nazis and made deals that encouraged their aggression in the first place before joining the allies when it came back to bite him and he had the Nazis on his doorstep.

 

Of course, this is all a "white hat allies" perspective. If I were to go with Time's Man of the Year criteria I'd go with Hitler, may his name be wiped out.

[SuperPheemy]

Re: Who was WWII's most important leader?

 

It of course depends on the context of what you want to be "important". If by important you mean "who can I place in jeopardy so their demise may change the outcome of WWII" then I suggest the following persons.

 

1. Winston Churchill - For all the reasons mentioned thus far. Especially if the fictional person to fill his void isn't up to the challenge of holding out through 1941.

 

2. Marshal Georgy Zhukov - Took over the Defense of Moscow, directed the defense of Stalingrad, drove the Wermacht back across Russia and to it's ultimate defeat in Berlin. Zhukov was one of the very few officers to not agree with Stalin and live. It is difficult to imagine two such Generals in Stalin's Russia.

 

3. FDR - Though Truman was able to finish the War, I don't know if Henry Wallace would have had the savvy and determination to lead the country in a two-front war while negotiating with England, France, Poland, and Soviet Russia.

 

4. Stalin - What sort of chaos would ensue in Russia if Stalin was assassinated at the start of Barbarossa? Or during the Seige of Stalingrad. Would a paralyzed Soviet Union give the Germans enough breathing room to secure the Ukraine and fuel the Wehrmacht?

 

5. Eisenhower - Able to balance demands from the Free French, Poland, Montgomery, and Patton. I can't think of any other General capable of keeping the Allies together long enough to invade France after getting bogged down in Italy. Which brings up the question, would Germany be able to fend off England, America and the various Resistance groups if they all acted on their own agendas, and with their own rivalries?

[Markdoc]

Re: Who was WWII's most important leader?

 

Can't really add much to what SuperPheemy said

 

cheers, Mark

[Ragnarok]

Re: Who was WWII's most important leader?

 

I agree with SuperPheemy. But above all, Churchill goes at the top of the list.

 

I shudder when I think of what might have happened had some of today's politicians had been in their place. Stalin tried negotiating with Hitler. Look what that got him. Chamberlain tried appeasement. All that did was buy Hitler more time.

[shadowcat1313]

Re: Who was WWII's most important leader?

 

I agree on Churchill, has anybody else read Fox on the Rhine and Fox at the Front by Douglas Niles? alt WW2 books where Himmler stages a coup after Hitler is assasinated, and Rommel survives the air attack to take over the western wall, among other changes

 

what if FDR hadnt died of polio til after the war?

 

what if the Allies hadnt broken the Ultra codes, it would have made things a lot rougher on the allies, but would it have made enough of a difference?

[Ian Mackinder]

Re: Who was WWII's most important leader?

 

I agree on Churchill, has anybody else read Fox on the Rhine and Fox at the Front by Douglas Niles? alt WW2 books where Himmler stages a coup after Hitler is assassinated, and Rommel survives the air attack to take over the western wall, among other changes

 

what if FDR hadnt died of polio til after the war?

 

what if the Allies hadnt broken the Ultra codes, it would have made things a lot rougher on the allies, but would it have made enough of a difference?

 

Heard of the books. I assume you mean that Rommel was not seriously injured by the air attack mentioned. Historically, he was implicated in the 'Schwarze Kapel' (the German conspiracy to kill Hitler), and forced to commit suicide (the understanding being that his family would not be harmed by the Nazis).

 

FDR's death happened late enough in the war that it is questionable whether there would be that much effect. The most significant change I can think of offhand is the targeting of the atomic bomb - I could be wrong, but think I once heard that Truman vetoed at least one proposed target choice for one reason or another. In general though, Truman did a fair job, IMO. The biggest differance may have been in the postwar period - the division of Europe and relationships with the Communists, for instance. It has been claimed that the Communist Chinese went cap-in-hand to the US for support after the war (the only other choice being Stalin - think about it!), and Truman knocked them back cold, choosing to stick with the Nationalists. One has to wonder how different the subsequent history of eastern Asia might have been.

 

As for the Ultra codes, note that the Allies did have other successful code-breaking operations plus some exceptional agents (Intrepid, for example). Without Ultra, there may have been differances - varying decisions by the Allied commands, specific operations that turned out differantly on either side. It would have prolonged the war, but whether or not this could have led to Allied defeat is highly debatable.

 

Afterthoughts....

 

First off, the Germans and the Japanese were no great shakes at communications security. The Germans were probably made overconfident by Enigma, but things like using the exact same format for all encoded messages (such as always beginning or ending with 'HEIL HITLER') or repeating the exact same message in two or more different encryption keys made decryption by the 'wrong' people that much easier. It might sound bizarre but the Germans made a frequent habit of both these things, amongst others.

The Japanese leadership never seemed to grasp that the Allies had people who were actually pretty good at speaking and reading Japanese, and so Japanese communications security was downright incompetent much of the time.

The single biggest problem the Allies had with their code-cracking was the sheer VOLUME of intercepts they were picking up at any given time.

 

Second, whilst the AH scenario of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan conquering the entire world is a popular (and scary!) theme, it is perhaps not that likely. I think the most likely 'best case' result for the Axis powers would have been to carve out their own respective niches within Eurasia, and then bog down in a 'Cold War' situation with whatever remained of the Allies. Much like what happened between the West and the Soviet Union historically.

[Vulcan]

Re: Who was WWII's most important leader?

 

That is a very good point. Neither Japan nor Germany had enough of a population to really go about conquering the world - individually, or even together. And both would have had real trouble projecting enough power across the oceans to conquer America. (Germany couldn't manage to project enough power to conquer England, less than 90 air-miles away!)

 

Realistically? If Zhokov had failed/been killed, the USSR could very well have fallen. Russia, on the other hand, would have endured, and quite possibly risen from the ashed later on. Granted, all the border nations would have split off as soon as the central government ceased to function.

 

But the real impact of the loss of Zhukov would be a horrendous increase in the casualties taken by America and England in the European campaigns. The Russian campaign took a vast number of German troops - pretty much all of their best units, thinking about it - and had those troops not been fighting Russia in the east, they would have been in France counterattacking our troops...

[Manic Typist]

Re: Who was WWII's most important leader?

 

The most significant change I can think of offhand is the targeting of the atomic bomb - I could be wrong' date=' but think I once heard that Truman vetoed at least one proposed target choice for one reason or another. [/quote']

 

I believe he vetoed Kyoto, which was and (still is) a significant historical and cultural site for Japan. Lots of very old structures and other things preserved there. By not targeting Kyoto, Truman did a lot to safeguard future relations with Japan after the war.

[Captain Obvious]

Re: Who was WWII's most important leader?

 

(Germany couldn't manage to project enough power to conquer England, less than 90 air-miles away!)

 

This was more a failure of strategy than of resources. At least according to Fighter General: The Life of Adolf Galland. A pretty good read, by the way.

 

Germany seemed to have pretty good relations with several countries in Latin America. They probably wouldn't have needed to conquer anything in South America to get cooperation there. It wouldn't take too many points of departure from the real world to get a pretty nasty history.

[McCoy]

Re: Who was WWII's most important leader?

 

(Germany couldn't manage to project enough power to conquer England' date=' less than 90 air-miles away!)[/quote']

Would have been easier had it not been for a badly timed decision to turn on the USSR. Smile sweetly at the Soviets, take over Britian, consolidate Fortress Europa, and wait for Stalin to die. As soon as he does, blitzkrieg over the border before his sucessor can consolidate power.

[Supreme Serpent]

Re: Who was WWII's most important leader?

 

Aside from the fine folks mentioned previously, I'll toss out another candidate.

 

OK, Adolf's disqualified, but some of those close to him certainly helped.

 

Goering. Look at various critical points. Dunkirk. Battle of Britain. Stalingrad. Failures of or overreaching by the Luftwaffe. A different leader for the air forces might have helped.

 

Hitler's doctor(s), perhaps?

[Captain Obvious]

Re: Who was WWII's most important leader?

 

Goering was an utter buffoon. Picking a person at random from the street would have provided a better leader for the Luftwaffe.

[Ian Mackinder]

Re: Who was WWII's most important leader?

 

That is a very good point. Neither Japan nor Germany had enough of a population to really go about conquering the world - individually' date=' or even together. [/quote']

 

And their "cooperation" was little more than wishful thinking for most of the war - the Germans shipped over some Enigma machines, based a few U-boats in Malaysia and, near war's end, sent them assorted goodies via U-boat. But that was about it.

 

The ONLY thing they really had in common was a mutual hatred/fear of Russia. Nazi racial theories, and the prevalent Japanese view of non-Japanese, would (and did) prevent anything deeper.

[Comic]

Re: Who was WWII's most important leader?

 

Intrepid?

[Sundog]

Re: Who was WWII's most important leader?

 

Goering was an utter buffoon. Picking a person at random from the street would have provided a better leader for the Luftwaffe.

 

 

I don't entirely agree. Goering was overconfident and underprepared; had he had underlings willing to stand up to him and make him pay attention he could have done a much better job.

 

However, eliminate Goering and you'll just get somebody mildly better, as the Luftwaffe as a whole had a bad case of overconfidence in the days before the BoB.

 

If you want to change things, take out Heinrich Himmler. Himmler had the distinction of doing an exceptional job - among the Nazi high command, he and Admiral Donitz stand out for sheer competence, and the SS (particularly the Waffen-SS) had a very strong effect on the war.

 

Not to mention that if you take HImmler out of the equation early enough, you have a real question whether the 'Night of the Long Knives' could ever have been carried off successfully - and the frightening concept of Ernst Rohm and his SA thugs taking centre stage in the European theatre.

[Ian Mackinder]

Re: Who was WWII's most important leader?

 

Intrepid?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Stephenson

 

Another British spy of note was 'Tricycle'

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tricycle_(spy)

[Ian Mackinder]

Re: Who was WWII's most important leader?

 

Not to mention that if you take HImmler out of the equation early enough' date=' you have a real question whether the 'Night of the Long Knives' could ever have been carried off successfully - and the frightening concept of Ernst Rohm and his SA thugs taking centre stage in the European theatre.[/quote']

 

How would that have been more frightening than Heinrich Himmler and his SS thugs?

[Captain Obvious]

Re: Who was WWII's most important leader?

 

I don't entirely agree. Goering was overconfident and underprepared; had he had underlings willing to stand up to him and make him pay attention he could have done a much better job.

 

However, eliminate Goering and you'll just get somebody mildly better, as the Luftwaffe as a whole had a bad case of overconfidence in the days before the BoB.

 

Goering did have underlings willing to stand up to him, and they generally paid for it. Adolf Galland stood up to him all the time, but was too valuable to expend for Goering's ego. Even at that, Galland was sent, near the end of the war, back onto flying status, with the expectation that he'd eventually be shot down.

 

If Galland had had his way, the Battle of Britain would have been fought with He-112s or He-100s instead of the slower, less maneuverable, shorter-ranged Me-109s. Of course, at this time, he was too junior to have much of a voice in policy decisions like this. Still, as a front-line commander, his opinion should have counted more than it did.

 

Then, with Goering's emphasis on bombing, the best fighter pilots were pulled to fly Stuka dive-bombers, which were handily shot down by Spitfires. The Me-109s were assigned to strict close escort duty for the heavy bombers, which negated the speed advantages of the Me-109.

 

Galland also butted heads with Goering over the use of jets as light bombers rather than fighters. At every step of the war, when Galland was given a free hand, the Allies had a rough go, and when Goering pulled rank, the Axis suffered. The Battle of Britain was won by the RAF with no margin to speak of. Even a tiny bit more advantage for the Axis would have changed the face of the war.

[Sundog]

Re: Who was WWII's most important leader?

 

How would that have been more frightening than Heinrich Himmler and his SS thugs?

 

 

Because the SS was many things to many people, where the SA was far more unified.

 

Your basic SS soldier was a combination soldier/policeman/Comissar. He believed in the Nazi ideals and enforced the law - often brutally, but also professionally. The organization saw itself as elite, and many of it's members tried to live up to that.

 

Then there was the Waffen-SS, part of the same organization, but separate. And the Waffen-SS was highly variable - there were units that upheld the highest standards of professional soldierly conduct. And there were also the Totenkopf (Death's Head) units that ran the extermination camps.

 

In comparison, consider that the entire SA could have been considered Totenkopf units.

[Sundog]

Re: Who was WWII's most important leader?

 

Goering did have underlings willing to stand up to him, and they generally paid for it. Adolf Galland stood up to him all the time, but was too valuable to expend for Goering's ego. Even at that, Galland was sent, near the end of the war, back onto flying status, with the expectation that he'd eventually be shot down.

 

If Galland had had his way, the Battle of Britain would have been fought with He-112s or He-100s instead of the slower, less maneuverable, shorter-ranged Me-109s. Of course, at this time, he was too junior to have much of a voice in policy decisions like this. Still, as a front-line commander, his opinion should have counted more than it did.

 

Then, with Goering's emphasis on bombing, the best fighter pilots were pulled to fly Stuka dive-bombers, which were handily shot down by Spitfires. The Me-109s were assigned to strict close escort duty for the heavy bombers, which negated the speed advantages of the Me-109.

 

Galland also butted heads with Goering over the use of jets as light bombers rather than fighters. At every step of the war, when Galland was given a free hand, the Allies had a rough go, and when Goering pulled rank, the Axis suffered. The Battle of Britain was won by the RAF with no margin to speak of. Even a tiny bit more advantage for the Axis would have changed the face of the war.

 

True - I had forgotten Galland. But as you point out, take out Goering and Galland would not have filled his place - he was too junior. The best you could hope for would be someone who would listen to Galland more than Goering did.

[Captain Obvious]

Re: Who was WWII's most important leader?

 

True - I had forgotten Galland. But as you point out' date=' take out Goering and Galland would not have filled his place - he was too junior. The best you could hope for would be someone who would listen to Galland more than Goering did.[/quote']

 

Yeah, but to find someone to listen more than Goering did would not have been hard. Fortunately for the Allies, Goering stroked Hitler's ego as much as he expected his own to be stroked, so Hitler kept him around.