Who was the best leader during WWII?

Logistics, logistics, logistics

Reliant said:

But ,would have put an end to subsequent wars and Police actions, thus, saving lives, treasure and the misery of many Military families.

I have friends from the neighborhood, STILL, rotting in Cambodia......

Click to expand...

Look @ the correlation of forces. The US fielded 90 divisions in WWII, & we were straining to keep them all up to full strength. The Soviets had 490. Plus our logistic tail was much longer than the Soviets', & relied on either good road nets & decent weather, or lots of air transport & better weather.

It just wasn't going to happen.

Sweden said:

Your point, that viewing history through modern eyes is a mistake, is a very good one. We now know that both the US and British air commanders were wrong when they said that Germany could be defeated solely by bombing. But it is understandable that both governments were attracted by the possibility.

Click to expand...

Bombing can destroy a heap of a lot of stuff on the ground. But to hold and gain ground, one needs troops for that. Boots on the ground or at least a very credible threat of the use of ground forces.

phattonez said:

It's hard to say that England and Western Europe were saved when all of their empires collapsed.

Click to expand...

Depends on when one is looking at it. Churchill and his bulldog stance certainly saved England and Western Europe from Hitlers grasp. Without England as a staging area and huge supply base, there would have been no D-Day invasion. Who knows how history would have turned out if Hitler held all of Western Europe to include Great Britain.

At the end of WWII colonialism was passe, only countries like France and Britain didn't know it yet.

Perotista said:

Depends on when one is looking at it. Churchill and his bulldog stance certainly saved England and Western Europe from Hitlers grasp.

Click to expand...

Debatable. Churchill's refusal to negotiate any kind of peace with Hitler certainly extended the Battle of Britain, eventually leading to civilians being targeted.

Without England as a staging area and huge supply base, there would have been no D-Day invasion. Who knows how history would have turned out if Hitler held all of Western Europe to include Great Britain.

Click to expand...

It's likely that Stalin wouldn't have been able to march through Poland, eventually taking all of Eastern Europe.

At the end of WWII colonialism was passe, only countries like France and Britain didn't know it yet.

Click to expand...

The expense of the war certainly didn't help.

Tigerace117 said:

Staying neutral helped no one but the fascists. Which, of course, is why you like the idea so much.

Click to expand...

Staying neutral would have lead to Hitler and Stalin killing each other. By siding with Communists, we helped Communists dominate Eastern Europe for decades.

Tigerace117 said:

Except the Communists, bad as they were, were saints compared to the Fascists.

Click to expand...

Those sent to Gulags would beg to differ.

Re: Logistics, logistics, logistics

southwest88 said:

Look @ the correlation of forces. The US fielded 90 divisions in WWII, & we were straining to keep them all up to full strength. The Soviets had 490. Plus our logistic tail was much longer than the Soviets', & relied on either good road nets & decent weather, or lots of air transport & better weather.

It just wasn't going to happen.

Click to expand...

My Father in Law was highly decorated Colonel in the AAC and said the main forces of the Russian Army couldn't hang with our forces after he and buddies took out what we sent them.
Air power RULES. Pull up pics of Berlin, Rotterdam, etc. .......

LesGovt said:

Rats! Another poll in which I cannot respond. The answer was General George S, Patton.

Click to expand...

Haha, nice evasion.

Re: Logistics, logistics, logistics

Reliant said:

My Father in Law was highly decorated Colonel in the AAC and said the main forces of the Russian Army couldn't hang with our forces after he and buddies took out what we sent them.
Air power RULES. Pull up pics of Berlin, Rotterdam, etc. .......

Click to expand...

Yah, so AAC is going to provide air cover & bombing & CAS strafing from Berlin all the way to Kamchatka in Fall 1945? In absolutely terrible flying weather? In mud & bogs? Fighting off guerrillas every step of the way? The logistics for projecting air power are the worse of the lot - POL, ammo, bombs, rockets, maintenance, specialized air crew, mechanics, radar, radio, flight control, airports - nah, we could barely sustain flying in all the support & crew from Burma to China - & the Hump was littered with dead transport & aircrews.

It was barely doable, supporting tactical P-40s - the Flying Tigers, with mostly US aircrew & mechanics & armorers. & the Generalissimo CKS actually wanted B-29s, to serve as his personal transport & deliver opium & other contraband in style, as I recall. That wasn't going to happen either.

phattonez said:

Debatable. Churchill's refusal to negotiate any kind of peace with Hitler certainly extended the Battle of Britain, eventually leading to civilians being targeted.



It's likely that Stalin wouldn't have been able to march through Poland, eventually taking all of Eastern Europe.



The expense of the war certainly didn't help.

Click to expand...

Did you know the first London Blitz occurred during WWI with Germany using zeppelins.

London?s World War I Zeppelin Terror - History in the Headlines

The folly of a two front war. If Hitler hadn't to have his forces divided after the invasion of the USSR who knows what would have happened or as you state, if Hitler could have moved his forces from the west to the east if he didn't have to worry about England and then the U.S. Germany didn't have the naval power to invade England during either WWI or WWII. Air power or the blitzes were Germany's only way to bring the war to England's soil. Churchill knew this. He also knew he had to hold out only so long before the U.S. would enter the war. Also true about the expense of WWII to both France and England. Neither was able to return to their former glory so to speak.

phattonez said:

Churchill
Hirohito
Hitler
Mussolini
Roosevelt
Stalin

I've had a tough time coming up with who the BEST actor is. It's easy to find the worst. There are plenty of bad candidates around, but I'm having a hard time finding the best, let alone a good option.

By best, I mean morally good. I don't mean the most successful. That obviously goes to Stalin. Who was the most morally upright leader during this time?

Click to expand...

"The only thing to fear is fear itself". Though he died before we dropped the bomb which ended the Pacific campaign, he gets the credit for winning WWII. He created the Manhattan Project. He was also successful in bringing us out of the depression. There's so much that can be credited to the New Deal. He was elected four times and beat back tatalitarian candidates such as Huey Long. He is still the standard on being a great president and on what a great president can do.


Sent from my Z833 using Tapatalk

Das Boot

Perotista said:

Did you know the first London Blitz occurred during WWI with Germany using zeppelins.

London?s World War I Zeppelin Terror - History in the Headlines

The folly of a two front war. If Hitler hadn't to have his forces divided after the invasion of the USSR who knows what would have happened or as you state, if Hitler could have moved his forces from the west to the east if he didn't have to worry about England and then the U.S. Germany didn't have the naval power to invade England during either WWI or WWII. Air power or the blitzes were Germany's only way to bring the war to England's soil. Churchill knew this. He also knew he had to hold out only so long before the U.S. would enter the war. Also true about the expense of WWII to both France and England. Neither was able to return to their former glory so to speak.

Click to expand...

The Zeppelins didn't work out as bombers - they were filled with hydrogen gas, too flammable - especially against tracer rounds. But Germany tried the Submarine threat in both wars - more of a terror weapon in WWI, but it was terrible propaganda against Germany - especially with UK whipping up a frenzy about atrocities (& cutting the trans-Atlantic cable links from Germany to US - clever, that way it all had to go through UK - although the German government was horribly inept @ handling public statements too. UK broke the German codes, & shared whatever was useful to UK with us.)

UK & France ran a much more effective blockade against Germany in WWI - none of the developed countries could feed themselves, the blockade continued until well after the Armistice was signed - a way of pressuring the German government into signing whatever was put in front of them. A lot of German civilian casualties were due to starvation, lack of medical supplies, doctors, plus the Spanish flu @ the end of the war.

phattonez said:

Churchill
Hirohito
Hitler
Mussolini
Roosevelt
Stalin

I've had a tough time coming up with who the BEST actor is. It's easy to find the worst. There are plenty of bad candidates around, but I'm having a hard time finding the best, let alone a good option.

By best, I mean morally good. I don't mean the most successful. That obviously goes to Stalin. Who was the most morally upright leader during this time?

Click to expand...

Most successful is not obviously Stalin...

phattonez said:

Those sent to Gulags would beg to differ.

Click to expand...

Those sent to gulags were often released and given the chance to win their freedom during the Second World War. If they could perform an act of sufficient heroism, they could "be redeemed."

How many people ddi your beloved fascists ever let out of their death camps?

phattonez said:

Staying neutral would have lead to Hitler and Stalin killing each other. By siding with Communists, we helped Communists dominate Eastern Europe for decades.

Click to expand...

Staying neutral would have ensured Hitler and Tojo would have emerged victorious---and they had no love for the United States. We would have directly facilitated the slaughter of far more people than the communists ever dreamed killing.

Reliant said:

If he were given the troops, gas, food and implements of War, he would have marched all the way to Japan.

Click to expand...

The Western Allies were exhausted by 1945. The Soviet Union had a massive, battle hardened army and the willingness to use it. "Operation Unthinkable" would have been a total disaster. We wouldn't have even come close to Japan.

phattonez said:

Debatable. Churchill's refusal to negotiate any kind of peace with Hitler certainly extended the Battle of Britain, eventually leading to civilians being targeted.



It's likely that Stalin wouldn't have been able to march through Poland, eventually taking all of Eastern Europe.



The expense of the war certainly didn't help.

Click to expand...

Churchill's unwillingness to negotiate with a genocidal maniac who had literally broken every treaty he'd ever signed was very sane, in fact.

No, it's pretty clear that once the Red Army got it's act together there wasn't much your beloved fascists would have done to stop it.

Clinging on in colonial backwaters where no one wanted them there was not the brightest move.

Dwight D. Eisenhower, Charles de Gaulle and Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz.

Tigerace117 said:

The Western Allies were exhausted by 1945. The Soviet Union had a massive, battle hardened army and the willingness to use it. "Operation Unthinkable" would have been a total disaster. We wouldn't have even come close to Japan.

Click to expand...

Unthinkable was Churchill's casting about for some military way to push the Soviets out of E. Europe? That wasn't going to happen, the Soviets had already fought off the German & their allied militaries. Churchill's own military looked @ the possibility, & declared it fanciful. That was that, & I don't know that Churchill even took up the possibility with FDR - who had already told Churchill & anybody else who listened that the US wasn't in WWII to save anyone's empire - British, French, Dutch.

The US (& Anzacs) needed the Soviets to invade Japan once the ETO was done, which they did. We didn't know up until the Trinity Test that the Gadget would work - once it did, we didn't need the Soviets as much - but it would still be useful to have them declare war on Japan & threaten to invade, certainly to take on the IJA troops yet in Asia, in Manchuria & etc.

Of course we could still take Japan - that was a US Navy/Marine theater, if need be. & with nukes, we only needed the Composite Bombing Group & their organic B-29s @ Tinian & their special weapons. If need be, we could simply stand off & nuclear bomb the islands flat - if all our conventional forces were required to redeploy to face the USSR. But that begs the question - Why would the US declare war on the USSR, an ally of UK & France & China from June 1941 on (& of the US, once Dec. 1941 rolled around?) On Churchill's say-so? I don't think so - & neither did the UK High Command - which is why the whole program became moot, & was quietly filed away.

Adolf Hitler in my opinion

Sent from my PGN521 using Tapatalk

phattonez said:

In gaining huge swaths of land, to start.

Click to expand...

It's apparently too soon for most people to look at WW2 objectively beyond ongoing Allied propaganda such as the Victors' version of history.

Subjective dabblers in history are unable to even utter Hitler's name without shuttering in a revulsion resulting from decades of demonizing indoctrination. Therefore, it may take the unsealing of still classified WW2 documents & another 70 years before many can analyze WW2's characters with objectivity.

Based on your criteria

gaining huge swaths of land

Click to expand...

it's hare to argue that Hitler's Generals & fighting forces accomplished more with less than any other Army up until the end of the war.
Rarely if ever did Germany's armed forces lose a battle unless they were grossly outnumbered and / or lacking crucial air support.

Among the compelling yet under reported incidents of the War was Hitler's peace plan sent via Rudolph Hess that was rejected out of hand by Churchill & other pro War elements in the Allied camp thus condemning millions to gruesome & unnecessary deaths.


"Document Suggests Hitler Knew of Hess' British Flight Plans"
Historian Uncovers New Account: Document Suggests Hitler Knew of Hess' British Flight Plans - SPIEGEL ONLINE
EXCERPT "But his air mission was a failure from the start. When he heard about the unexpected visitor from Germany, then-British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, who at the time was giving a dinner party at his weekend house near Oxford, was not even willing to postpone a planned film screening, saying: "Well, Hess or no Hess, I'm going to see the Marx Brothers." Why make peace with an aggressor who was determined to subjugate Europe? Hess was taken into custody."CONTINUED



"Nazis ‘offered to leave western Europe in exchange for free hand to attack USSR"
History news | History Extra



"Hitler didn't want world war"
Hitler didn't want world war

EXCERPT "Hitler didn't want a world war, and had no stomach for fighting England, according to Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Louis Kilzer, author of "Churchill's Deception" (Simon & Schuster, 1994).

Hitler believed the future of Western civilization depended on the cooperation of Germany and her Aryan cousins: England and the United States. His territorial demands were limited to conquering Communist Russia, which he regarded as a proxy for Jewish world ambitions. He was determined to avoid fighting a war on two fronts."CONTINUED

southwest88 said:

Unthinkable was Churchill's casting about for some military way to push the Soviets out of E. Europe? That wasn't going to happen, the Soviets had already fought off the German & their allied militaries. Churchill's own military looked @ the possibility, & declared it fanciful. That was that, & I don't know that Churchill even took up the possibility with FDR - who had already told Churchill & anybody else who listened that the US wasn't in WWII to save anyone's empire - British, French, Dutch.

The US (& Anzacs) needed the Soviets to invade Japan once the ETO was done, which they did. We didn't know up until the Trinity Test that the Gadget would work - once it did, we didn't need the Soviets as much - but it would still be useful to have them declare war on Japan & threaten to invade, certainly to take on the IJA troops yet in Asia, in Manchuria & etc.

Of course we could still take Japan - that was a US Navy/Marine theater, if need be. & with nukes, we only needed the Composite Bombing Group & their organic B-29s @ Tinian & their special weapons. If need be, we could simply stand off & nuclear bomb the islands flat - if all our conventional forces were required to redeploy to face the USSR. But that begs the question - Why would the US declare war on the USSR, an ally of UK & France & China from June 1941 on (& of the US, once Dec. 1941 rolled around?) On Churchill's say-so? I don't think so - & neither did the UK High Command - which is why the whole program became moot, & was quietly filed away.

Click to expand...

Yep, and while it was top secret at the time, for obvious reasons, that overall attitude---the willingness to plunge into another fight not even a few years after the last one had ended---was a big part of what cost him the job in the end. No one was interested in more fighting after the years of war with Nazi Germany.

The USSR had yet to strike Japan when the original Operation Unthinkable was drafted up, and the plan went so far as to assume Stalin would ally with Japan against the Allies if Downfall kicked off.

I think the feasibility study had more to do with the fact that the USSR's forces greatly outnumbered the Allied armies than anything else though.

Perotista said:

Did you know the first London Blitz occurred during WWI with Germany using zeppelins.

London?s World War I Zeppelin Terror - History in the Headlines

Click to expand...

Interesting. I'm not well versed on WWI. Thanks for that.

The folly of a two front war. If Hitler hadn't to have his forces divided after the invasion of the USSR who knows what would have happened or as you state, if Hitler could have moved his forces from the west to the east if he didn't have to worry about England and then the U.S. Germany didn't have the naval power to invade England during either WWI or WWII. Air power or the blitzes were Germany's only way to bring the war to England's soil. Churchill knew this. He also knew he had to hold out only so long before the U.S. would enter the war. Also true about the expense of WWII to both France and England. Neither was able to return to their former glory so to speak.

Click to expand...

I don't think that Hitler had a choice. Whether this is Nazi propaganda I don't know, but Stalin was accumulating forces at their border preparing for an eastward invasion. Hitler preemptively struck Russia since, at least it seems this way, they were far better attacking than defending. From the very outbreak it seems that Nazi Germany was destined to fall.

My whole point is that I would rather that Germany and Russia kill each other than have the West get involved and essentially cede Eastern Europe to Communists.

Bodhisattva said:

Most successful is not obviously Stalin...

Click to expand...

How was he not successful? Look at how much the Communists gained from WWII. Yes, Russia had many casualties, but given that Stalin was killing millions anyway in the purges, I don't see how you can count that against him.

Tigerace117 said:

Staying neutral would have ensured Hitler and Tojo would have emerged victorious---and they had no love for the United States. We would have directly facilitated the slaughter of far more people than the communists ever dreamed killing.

Click to expand...

In what universe does Hitler hold onto power? Remember, he was not able to take Moscow even before the West really started getting involved. You would have had Nazis and Soviets fighting to the death, which is preferable to aiding Soviets.