Jump to content

Who was WWII's most important leader?


hooligan x

Recommended Posts

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.

 

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?

 

What sort of chaos would ensue? Probably a lot less than did ensue. Firstly the Politbureau swiftly tries and executes, well someone they didn't like anyway. They then organise the war effort pretty much as they did but without having to worry about what Stalin thinks. There's some struggle to become top dog, but it's probably over quickly and doesn't distract the average Soviet soldier from his job (particularly as he doesn't hear about it). Concessions are made to greater freedom and some victims of Stalin's "mistakes" are rehabilitated earlier. Everyone in charge knows they're dead if Hitler takes over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 85
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Re: Who was WWII's most important leader?

 

What sort of chaos would ensue? Probably a lot less than did ensue. Firstly the Politbureau swiftly tries and executes' date=' well someone they didn't like anyway. They then organise the war effort pretty much as they did but without having to worry about what Stalin thinks. There's some struggle to become top dog, but it's probably over quickly and doesn't distract the average Soviet soldier from his job (particularly as he doesn't hear about it). Concessions are made to greater freedom and some victims of Stalin's "mistakes" are rehabilitated earlier. Everyone in charge knows they're dead if Hitler takes over.[/quote']

 

Get rid of Stalin earlier. Like BEFORE the big purges during the mid-late 1930s. There were some very talented people around at that time, and most of them wound up dead. If that had not happened, or been somehow mitigated, then the Soviet military and industrial capacity would have been in much better shape.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Who was WWII's most important leader?

 

The main objection here is that Goering was especially close to the Fuhrer, and therefore was able to to use this to get a much bigger slice of the pie for "his" Luftwaffe. A more competent leader MAY have done better, with hindsight, but it is very conceivable there have had much less of a Luftwaffe with which to do anything. Possibly meaning more resources going elsewhere - the SS, the Kreigsmarine, the Wehrmacht, the Abwehr, etc.

 

One of Hitler's most consistent problems was NOT getting along with military commanders who chose competance over toeing the party line.

 

Yeah but even restricting the pool to suck-ups big enough to please Hitler it should still be possible to find someone more competent than Goering. Even without quite the capacity to get more resources from Hitler that means a more effective Luftwaffe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Who was WWII's most important leader?

 

Get rid of Stalin earlier. Like BEFORE the big purges during the mid-late 1930s. There were some very talented people around at that time' date=' and most of them wound up dead. If that had not happened, or been somehow mitigated, then the Soviet military and industrial capacity would have been in much better shape.[/quote']

 

Not to mention that of course his replacement does not necessarily ignore all the indications that Hitler is about to attack. The number of warnings that the Soviets had about the attack, including the actual day, was astounding. Stalin had all the german deserters that came across with information, including again the very day the attack was due, shot. Without this willful ignorance figure at least 100,000 less Soviet casualties early on, their airforce has significant survivors of the first attack etc.

 

Without the blindness of Stalin the Russian front is far tougher from day one. Nobody worries as much that the Russians might collapse any day. What does this mean for Lend-Lease? What does it mean for efforts to open a second front?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Who was WWII's most important leader?

 

The number of warnings that the Soviets had about the attack' date=' including the actual day, was astounding. [/quote']

 

Yeah, choice irony there. Two of the most significant "surprise" attacks of ww2 - Barbarossa and Pearl Harbour - were, in the final analysis, the worst-kept secrets ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Who was WWII's most important leader?

 

Yeah but even restricting the pool to suck-ups big enough to please Hitler it should still be possible to find someone more competent than Goering. Even without quite the capacity to get more resources from Hitler that means a more effective Luftwaffe.

 

Maybe. Depends on how successfully this hypothetical alternate leader of the Luftwaffe could both do his job well and get along with the Fuhrer (ESPECIALLY when things were not keeping up with the latter's expectations). An unenviable juggling match, to put it mildily. There were some very competent people in the other services, but none of them ever seemed to fully manage this trick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Who was WWII's most important leader?

 

So if the French Army and the British Expeditionary Force had even tried attacking Germany (even if they couldn't have taken the whole country) they might have saved Poland? Or am I reading too much into it?

 

The crisis of the battle in Poland took place 17--19 September, when the Germans, having failed to cut the Poles off on the Vistula, launched a deeper drive towards the Bug. The isolated Poznan Army reversed front and attacked the rear of the German 8th and 10th Armies, nearly cutting them off and reversing the encirclement. (The Germans must have forgotten their "superior way of war" briefly.) On the 19th, the Poznan Army, having shot its bolt, surrendered.

These were mobilisation days M+16--M+19 for Britain and France, but no significant British troops were on the continent yet, and this in itself made the French a little reluctant to attack. With the number of men mobilised and ready and the narrow front on which it was possible to attack, the question was the liklihood of making significant gains before German troops released from the Polish front could counterattack the flanks of any French penetration. Certainly no major French effort in the hours of crisis could have had any impact on developments in Poland. The timeframe was too short.

As to why the French did not try harder, look at the map. Apart from an assault crossing of the Rhine, which would have gained the French precious little anyway, the French were limited to a drive into the Saar valley, again heading towards a formidable river barrier and significant fortifications. Once these were carried, the French faced a drive down a narrow defile towards the Rhine valley, with their flanks exposed to a counterattack through Luxembourg. This was simply not the time or the place for a major offensive. The people who drew the borders of France in 1815 were thinking about these things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Re: Who was WWII's most important leader?

 

I think your best bet for coming up with a German situational improvement is to find a way to have Chamberlain's government hang on for even a few weeks longer in May 1940. If Churchill doesn't become PM' date=' either because he's dead or some bargain's been made between the various groups in Parliament who lost confidence in Chamberlain (keeping him there when the Germans reach the Channel) then it's much more plausible that Britain accepts the loss of France, signs some bogus treaty, and starts rebuilding what it lost at Dunkirk. No Battle of Britain (in 1940 at least), maybe Mosely doesn't get arrested and the Fascists in England keep a public voice, and Germany starts turning on the charm about how they and England need to work together to fight the Commies. You can get a fun bunch of new historical branches from that. Once Churchill's in charge, though, it's tough to see Europe going much differently. dw[/quote']

 

Mosely was a fascist but a patriot, in the sense of "my country right or wrong". As soon as Chamberlain declared the country was at war, his loyalty went 100% to the British government. Does anyone know how likely Chamberlain was to surrender?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Who was WWII's most important leader?

 

Points I would like to make as regards the Battle of Britain and Operation Sea Lion.

 

The standard assumption is that Germany was unable to achieve control of the air over even a portion of Britain, and this is what led to Sea Lion's cancellation.

 

The fact is, this is a gross over-simplification.

 

Establishing control of the air over part of Britain was merely the first step of several.

 

The next step would have been to reliably maintain this control. Not an easy task at all, given the limitations of the Luftwaffe, differing aircraft production rates and the threat of RAF units being redeployed from elsewhere.

 

The step after that was to somehow neutralize the Royal Navy. The largest and most experienced navy in the world, in what was basically its own backyard. The Kriegsmarine did not have the strength to do this (as typified by the later Norwegian campaign), so it would have been up to massed attacks by U-boats and from the air. Massed air attacks would have meant diverting forces from maintaining air control of the planned invasion site(s), and thus taking pressure off the RAF. Yes, damage would have been done, but would it drive the RN completely out of the area, both day and night? I really doubt it.

 

Then, there is the invasion itself. Airborne assault (paratroop and glider) would have played a major part but the aircraft would have been flying into particularly hostile territory (with questionable air cover), so losses would have been heavy. The seaborne phase was critical, and Sea Lion called for most of the troops to be carried to England in towed, open barges - Germany simply did not have anything better to do the job. Ghod help those troops if the weather turned bad, OR (more significantly) if even just a few RN warships got in amongst the fleet.

 

Some might make the valid point that, post Dunkirk, a lot of British Army units lacked heavy equipment. Yes, but not all - and the German airborne forces also lacked heavy equipment at that stage (those 'Gigant' gliders did not come in until much later). It could be argued that at best, it would have been an ugly fight.

 

An important example to consider is the later invasion of Crete. The Axis won that one, but their losses were appalling. That was against a scattered and comparitively isolated defending force without any real air cover of its own. The fact that a small number of RN ships got in amongst the seaborne component of the invasion and did one hell of a lot of damage did not help much either. With victories like these .....

 

In short, the Germans COULD have pressed Operation Sea Lion but, unless there was a major differance from the historical situation, victory would have been far from certain and losses would probably have been enormous whatever happened. Which is one reason why they did not go ahead with it.

 

http://www.ww2f.com/what-if/11752-operation-sealion-possible-outcome-2.html

Suggests it was a pipedream from the start. The German navy just didn't have the equipment or the will to transport more than 8,000 men (to take a country of what 50 million?). The barges proposed sunk in anything above sea state 2. Wake from a destroyer is 2.5 and most days the channel can turn on considerably more. So theoriecticaly the whole plan could be destroyed by a single destroy without firing shot.

This is my favourite part.

 

"Ignoring for the time being the air battle, we will look at the mechanism proposed for getting 9 divisions across the Channel. This was the responsibility of the Kriegsmarine. The plan was:

 

Block the west end of the Channel with U-Boats (operating in shallow, confined waters and required to stop, with 100% effectiveness, fast moving warships rather than slow moving merchantmen).

Block the east end of the Channel with mines and 14 torpedo boats (with 20 enemy destroyers immediately to face).

The main surface fleet of the Kriegsmarine was to "Break out into the Atlantic and draw the Home Fleet into following it."

 

Even if this exercise in wishful thinking worked perfectly, there was a problem. The RN had, based within the limits proposed, 3 light cruisers and 17 destroyers. However, the Kriegsmarine had thought of this, and decided that the barges would be adequately protected if the soldiers on the barges (traveling at night) "Fired at unidentified ships". "

 

Hmm, you're in a barge in the middle of the channel, where death by

hypothermia is usually about than half an hour away once you go swimming. You know the RN is about and has destroyers, cruisers

and even battlewagons that can take a 5" shot without worrying. Are

you going to open up on an unidentified ship with your AT gun? That you've never fired on a rocking boat before?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Who was WWII's most important leader?

 

The question being who was WWII's most important leader, not the best, I'd have to give the nod to Hitler. Without his twisted vision and drive the whole shooting match may have been avoided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Re: Who was WWII's most important leader?

 

Hey there' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

Mussolini.

 

If his attack on Greece had not been one of the most badly managed campaigns ever (screwed up logistics, screwed up communications, unclear chains of command, ruined morale, etc), Germany would not have had to delay the invasion of Russia by about two months, would not have had a significant fraction of its troops tied up in the Balkans, and would not have made some of the goofs in logistics and supply that did happen (because of the rush-job nature of the invasion of the Balkan region, a lot of misunderstandings about what was needed occurred, and a significant amount of materiel was sent to the wrong place).

 

With those problems never occurring, the invasion of Russia would have gone much better, and the Soviets would likely have been forced across the Urals. A peace treaty (or at least a long-term cease fire) between Germany and Russia would have followed, and Germany could then turn its attention to the UK.

 

Anyway, Mussolini was a common thug who got lucky; offing him has a lot of appeal. :eg:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Who was WWII's most important leader?

 

Basil, I think the consensus is that this is a myth. It was mostly invented as an excuse for the British intervention in Greece. (It may have looked like a predictable disaster, but it changed the course of the war!) However, the usual lobby of German generals got behind it later. (We would have won the war, but that Hitler guy, who we totally didn't like, no matter what you hear, screwed it up.)

The German timetable always called for an attack on Russia in late June, for a number of very good reasons. The ground is dry, weather is better, rivers are lower, days are longer (and warmer), there is more forage for horses. There's a great recent study based on extensive interviews with mid-level German officers (Barbarossa: The First Hundred Days) that shows that most of the "mistakes" fof the campaign, from the assumption that Russia would go down as fast as France, to the cauldron battle at Kiev, were part of German planning and expectations in June of 1941.

Moreoever, the Germans had to intervene in the Mediterranean, not because Greece was being obnoxiously victorious, but because Italy was close to collapse in Africa, at sea and politically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Who was WWII's most important leader?

 

Anyway' date=' Mussolini was a common thug who got lucky; offing him has a lot of appeal. :eg:[/quote']That was my impression too; until I read a biography of him (Mussolini: A New Life by Nicholas Farrell) a few months ago. He was intelligent, well read, and spoke several languages fluently. He was a dedicated socialist his entire life - he was in the Italian Communist Party at one point - and considered himself the supporter of the "little guy" to the end of his life. My impression was that Mussolini was someone whose ambition and overweening pride (both personal and in his nation) got him dragged into events way over his head. He also feared Hitler and Nazi Germany and it appears he genuinely felt if Italy wasn't Germany's ally it would end up its victim.

 

I wouldn't go so far as to call him a good guy (far from it), and his pompousness makes him seem quite the buffoon, but he was a more sympathetic figure than I expected. I don't think he was evil in the way Hitler or Stalin were; it's more that his many character flaws prevented him from recognizing where his course was going to take him until it was far too late.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Who was WWII's most important leader?

 

I wouldn't go so far as to call him a good guy (far from it)' date=' and his pompousness makes him seem quite the buffoon, but he was a more sympathetic figure than I expected. I don't think he was evil in the way Hitler or Stalin were; it's more that his many character flaws prevented him from recognizing where his course was going to take him until it was far too late.[/quote']

 

I agree.

 

It gells with what I recall reading long ago about how he died. When confronted by his assassin / executioner (and knowing full well he had no chance of escape or of putting up a fight), Mussolini stood his ground, pulled open his jacket and basically dared the guy to kill him. Which, IMO, shows more courage than many other Axis leaders had when their day of reckoning came.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Who was WWII's most important leader?

 

Basil' date=' I think the consensus is that this is a myth. It was mostly invented as an excuse for the British intervention in Greece.[/quote']

Um, this is a non-sequitor. Who invented what, when, and how? How does whateveritis serve as an excuse? Britain had treaties with Greece, and followed through on them. Italy's invasion was "excuse" enough. I'm sorry, but I don't see your point.

 

(It may have looked like a predictable disaster' date=' but it changed the course of the war!)[/quote']

What looked like a predictable disaster? The German invasion of Russia, Germany's rescue of Italy, or the British action in Greece?

 

The German timetable always called for an attack on Russia in late June' date=' for a number of very good reasons. The ground is dry, weather is better, rivers are lower, days are longer (and warmer), there is more forage for horses.[/quote']

I'm sorry if I seem rude, but just where did you get your info?? The marshes along much of Russia's western border are at their most boggy and impassable in June. Past the marshes, the rest of the land (up to the Urals, and the Germans never intended to cross the Urals) is at its most passable in June, true, but you'd want to get over those marshes before they were at their worst. Hence to plan to start the invasion in late April, and the latest. Which would also give the Germans time to get all the way to the Urals before winter set in (well, they thought so).

 

Mussolini's incompetent disaster lead to the various fascistic governments that were propped up (by and large) by fear of Italy (much more so than fear of Germany), now being seen as "paper tigers". Thus rebellion throughout southeast Europe, exposing Germany's (intended) south flank. Germany would have had to either abandon the invasion of Russia for a year, or throw desperately needed men and materiel at the Balkans, and delay the invasion.

 

The second is the choice Germany made, and it proved to be the wrong one.

 

Moreoever' date=' the Germans had to intervene in the Mediterranean, not because Greece was being obnoxiously victorious, but because Italy was close to collapse in Africa, at sea and politically.[/quote']

A) it was not Greece's victory, it was the explosion of rebellions from Czechoslovakia down to Yugoslavia and Bulgaria. The south flank of the intended invasion was now completely exposed. Russia could easily have talked Czechoslovakia into allowing a massive Russian force to cross its lands, and hit Germany's side.

B) Italy's problems in Africa meant nothing to Germany's invasion plans. It's military failure in Greece, in and of itself, was equally unimportant. It's total loss of prestige, influence, and the ability to cow peoples and governments, in the Balkans, was the problem.

 

That was my impression too; until I read a biography of him (Mussolini: A New Life by Nicholas Farrell) a few months ago. He was intelligent' date=' well read, and spoke several languages fluently.[/quote']

OK, so he was an uncommon (due to level of education) thug.

 

It gells with what I recall reading long ago about how he died.

Most deep-dyed in the wool thugs have plenty of personal bravery. The stereotype of the bully who's really a coward is utter bilge-water.

 

If you really remember your childhood, you'll recall that the bullies were the best fighters, and they NEVER backed down. A bully, a thug, by definition has an abundance of personal courage. And utter disdain for the weak, the calm, the non-violent.

 

Mussolini was a thug. Period.

 

 

Anyway, the OP was looking for someone to kill to change the course of WW II. I gave my opinion. And, I add, I think offing Mussolini at the right time would be the most interesting Alternate Timeline to base a campaign on. :winkgrin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Who was WWII's most important leader?

 

Lots of good reasons given for the various leaders, but I think I would have to go with Churchill prior to 1942, as he held the line until the US entered the war and Eisenhower afterwards. Eisenhower provided the neccessary competance, tact and low key ego to keep all the primadonnas in line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Who was WWII's most important leader?

 

First a general point on excuses: World War II unleashed a vast storm of memoir literature. There are two kinds of memoirs. One is a late retirement project, full of kind and gentle, mostly personal observations on the past. They can be very interesting, but most aren't.

The other is the product of either massive bitterness, massive ego, or both. They are vastly fascinating because populated by stupid people making ludicrous mistakes, easily identified by the fact that they are not the author. I'm going to retract my comment about the idea that the Balkan Campaign saved Russia (and thus turned the tide of WWII), because I do not have a citation to hand. I suspect that I will find it if I ever look at Field-Marshall Wavell or Anthony Eden's memoirs, but I don't have either book at hand. That said, we are both aware that this notion has been advanced as a counter-factual and a "just so" story to explain why the campaign in Greece really wasn't a complete failure, after all.

 

On the timing of the Russian campaignj, Basil, I will defer to those who make a specific study of the subject, but my understanding is that the weather in continental Russia is cold and snowy in the winter, gradually warming during a relatively rainy spring, followed by a hot and dry summer.

One can see, then, that that the rivers (and the low lying marshy areas drained by them), will fall during the winter, rise during the spring, and then fall again in the summer. Given the lifecycle of forage grass, necessary for the hundreds of thousands of horses upon which the German army depended, war in Russia has always been a summertime occupation, with even 22 June being too early to go on campaign in some years. (For lack of anything better on hand on these timeless verities, I'm going to point you at Richard Riehn's 1812, interesting, but far too diffused on this subject to be very useful.)

But, hey, don't listen to me, listen to the acknowledged expert, Andreas Hillsgruber, Hitlers Strategie, (504--08) available in English translation and also summarised in the German official history, Deutsches Reich im zweiten Weltkrieg, also now available in English translation. (Or just pick up the one line summary in Weinberg, World at Arms, 204.) And bear in mind that the Germans didn't think that they needed much more than a single summer campaign to beat the Russians.

Ever since the emergence of the Axis alignment well before the official signing of the Pact of Steel, the Mediterranean theatre had always had a powerful attraction to British strategists. The Italian economy depended on coastwise shipping, and, lacking POL, wheat and coal shipped in by the British, could only be supported by barge traffic carrying these bulky necessities down the Danube to the Black Sea and thence to Italy via Greek coastal waters. Should either Greece or Italy enter the war, or Britain gain a useful naval base from which to operate against Italy (Malta being too close, Gibraltar and Alexandria too remote), Italy would soon be forced to surrender, effectively ending German hopes of victory through a strategic "siege" of the Commonwealth. (Shorter shipping lanes between Britain and the Middle East would save merchant bottoms, while the RN's battleships could go to Singapore and fend off the Japanese.)

Therefore, as the war in North Africa seemed to be winding down into victory at the same time that the Italian attack on Greece came to grief, a debate broke out in the British War Cabinet over whether British forces should be sent to Greece. British CinC Middle East, Archibald Wavell, CIGS Sir John Dill, and future Prime Minister Anthony Eden persuaded the War Cabinet to send troops to Greece and a forward naval base detachment to west Crete's Suda Bay. (A brief discussion of the diplomatic aspects will be found in Weinberg, 219--20; for the naval strategy issues I've got to find something for you, although I imagine that the staff history, The Royal Navy in the Meditteranean, will be interesting on the subject).

It was in this context that the British gave tacit approval to a coup in Yugoslavia that brought a pro-British regime into power, and cheesed off Hitler no end. The result was the Greek campaign, on which I have found no more powerful indictment than Brigadier Brunskill's discussion of the logistics issues in two articles published in the 1946 volume of Army Quarterly. (For example, the only way to put the rolling stock on Greece's main north-south rail line out of way of capture was to draw it up on the main track of the only east-west rail line. For another, even though Crete's then-main centre of population and most important clearing port is on its south coast, there was no road, and no modern unloading facilities there to allow the British to ship supplies in from the south.)

 

So there it is. The German-Roumanian-Bulgarian campaign against Greece and Yugoslavia was basically a fire brigade action intended to keep Italy in the war. The troops and resources deployed there were unavailable for Barbarossa, but complaining about that is like complaining that Germany was fighting a two front war. True, but beside the point. Had Germany not intervened in the Mediterranean, Commonwealth support for Russia would have been more ample and effect. Although perhaps Japan wouldn't have entered the war, then...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Who was WWII's most important leader?

 

OK' date=' so he was an [u']un[/u]common (due to level of education) thug.

 

Most deep-dyed in the wool thugs have plenty of personal bravery. The stereotype of the bully who's really a coward is utter bilge-water.

 

If you really remember your childhood, you'll recall that the bullies were the best fighters, and they NEVER backed down. A bully, a thug, by definition has an abundance of personal courage. And utter disdain for the weak, the calm, the non-violent.

 

Mussolini was a thug. Period.

 

Never actually disputed that last bit. But, as I already said, compared with various other Axis leaders (some of whom arguably made him look like a choirboy), he showed personal bravery at the end. It does not make him an angel, but it does suggest a positive quality or two. Dismissing this with the sweeping assertion that " Mussolini was a bully / thug, therefore ... " is, I think, somewhat over-simplifying.

 

It is incredibly easy to brand people such as Hitler, Himmler, Tojo, Stalin and, yes, Mussolini as "evil" and just leave it at that. But the truth is more complex - all these men (and others) issued orders for the committing of horrific acts, and were ultimately responsible for the deaths of millions. But all of them were human (well, maybe except Stalin) and were capable of occasional kindness as well - even Hitler had a dog that he was fond of, and he also enjoyed family picnic-style gatherings with the families of his inner circle. Some people are not comfortable with that notion, humanizing the monsters, so to speak, but it is there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Who was WWII's most important leader?

 

Since a lot of what if's are being thrown out there, there are two factors that would have made Germany's invasion of the Soviet Union a complete and utter failure instead of the close thing it was.

 

The Soviet Union had vastly superior tanks in 1941, however due to intelligence that Germany had better tanks than it actually had, production of new tanks and more critically ammunition was halted while evalation of new tanks proceeded. By the time the Soviets realised their mistake there was not time to make up the lost time and many Soviet tanks went into battle desperately short on ammunition.

 

There were two critical decisions that could have made a major change.

 

#1 If Hitler had held off attacking the USSR until 1942 as some suggest would have been a good idea, it would have been disasterous. The nearly invulnerable KV 1 & 2 (many KV tanks held off the Germans for hours with no ammunition, in some cases ramming or running over German tanks) would have been well supplied with ammunition. They also would have had the T-34 in service. The Tiger only began to enter service in 1942 so the Germans would have had nothing to counter the Soviet Armor. Without the collapse of the Red Army, Germany may not have had the breathing space to upgun their outdated tanks.

 

#2 If Stalin had decided against halting production in preparation for re-tooling of new tanks, the Germans would have rolled into poorly organized but well armed Soviet Heavy tanks. This very nearly happend but Stalin finally was won over by those recommending a drastic change in tank design.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Who was WWII's most important leader?

 

 

If you really remember your childhood, you'll recall that the bullies were the best fighters, and they NEVER backed down. A bully, a thug, by definition has an abundance of personal courage. And utter disdain for the weak, the calm, the non-violent.

 

Speak for your own childhood. The bullies in mine were good fighters, and they seldom backed down, but they weren't always the best fighters. Sometimes they got their assess handed to them - in spades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Who was WWII's most important leader?

 

I have to say Winston Churchill, at least during the first part of the war. He held England together when it was by no means certain that the Nazis weren't going to be able to take the British Isles, and by no means certain that the Americans would enter the war at all. Britain stood basically alone, and managed to deliver the first few bloody blows to the Nazis.

 

Churchill was by no means perfect, in fact he was a hard-core imperialist, among other things. But the "free world" does owe him a bit of a debt of gratitude. If Britain had been lost to the Nazis, WW2 might have been much longer and bloodier. Without "Airstrip 1", an invasion of Europe would have been much harder to undertake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Who was WWII's most important leader?

 

I have to say Winston Churchill, at least during the first part of the war. He held England together when it was by no means certain that the Nazis weren't going to be able to take the British Isles, and by no means certain that the Americans would enter the war at all. Britain stood basically alone, and managed to deliver the first few bloody blows to the Nazis.

 

Churchill was by no means perfect, in fact he was a hard-core imperialist, among other things. But the "free world" does owe him a bit of a debt of gratitude. If Britain had been lost to the Nazis, WW2 might have been much longer and bloodier. Without "Airstrip 1", an invasion of Europe would have been much harder to undertake.

 

I almost made a flip reply to this saying the Russians would have managed it just fine - it would simply have taken them a bit longer without the Germans having to divert some of their forces from the Eastern front in the last year of the war.

 

But then, if England had fallen, would Russian have still been able to fight? Lend-lease sent a lot of material to Russia across the Atlantic. If the British fleet hadn't been able to assist (or worse, had been turned against us! :eek:) could we have still sent that material to Russia?

 

And would Russia have held Stalingrad or Moscow without it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...