Churchill Wanted War With Russia In 1945

[Smurf]

Been watching these Michael Portillo programmes I long ago recorded on state secrets. He was given access to archives and I was fascinated to learn that at the end of the war in 1945 Churchill asked the military to tell him of our chances of going to war with Russia. They concluded no victory would be possible for a long time. Indeed the plans also included having defeated Germany on our side. The Yanks were not interested but apparently Churchill felt he had an obligation to Poland. The UK had declared war on Germany because of Poland and Churchill wasn't comfortable seeing Poland then in the clutches of communist Russia. Anyone heard of this before?

 

[egb_hibs]

Been watching these Michael Portillo programmes I long ago recorded on state secrets. He was given access to archives and I was fascinated to learn that at the end of the war in 1945 Churchill asked the military to tell him of our chances of going to war with Russia. They concluded no victory would be possible for a long time. Indeed the plans also included having defeated Germany on our side. The Yanks were not interested but apparently Churchill felt he had an obligation to Poland. The UK had declared war on Germany because of Poland and Churchill wasn't comfortable seeing Poland then in the clutches of communist Russia. Anyone heard of this before?

Rings a vague bell. There was no way it could have been done. If the Germans couldn't have beaten Russia - who basically won ww2 IMHO - then the allies sure a shit couldn't. And without the yanks it would have been laughable (if not for the awfulness)

- - - Updated - - -

A really interesting what-if is if hitler hadn't broken the nazi - soviet pact. If I could be arsed learning to play one of these fiendishly complicated war games, I'd like to give it a go as the nazis and maintain the alliance, and see what the computer says would happen.

One thing I've raised before and been too lazy to research; I have never really understood the relationship between Germany and Japan, and even how a Japanese attack was used as an argument for war with Germany - I understand that Roosevelt was looking for a pretext but not don't understand how it gave him one. I also don't understand whether their was an active Japan / Germany shared strategy or whether they just happened to be fighting the same people at the same time. Again, had the nazis had nothing to do with Japan - what would they have lost, versus the loss of bringing the U.S. Into the war?

 

[Smurf]

Rings a vague bell. There was no way it could have been done. If the Germans couldn't have beaten Russia - who basically won ww2 IMHO - then the allies sure a $#@! couldn't. And without the yanks it would have been laughable (if not for the awfulness)

- - - Updated - - -

A really interesting what-if is if hitler hadn't broken the nazi - soviet pact. If I could be arsed learning to play one of these fiendishly complicated war games, I'd like to give it a go as the nazis and maintain the alliance, and see what the computer says would happen.

One thing I've raised before and been too lazy to research; I have never really understood the relationship between Germany and Japan, and even how a Japanese attack was used as an argument for war with Germany - I understand that Roosevelt was looking for a pretext but not don't understand how it gave him one. I also don't understand whether their was an active Japan / Germany shared strategy or whether they just happened to be fighting the same people at the same time. Again, had the nazis had nothing to do with Japan - what would they have lost, versus the loss of bringing the U.S. Into the war?

Great questions Martin especially on Japan. I can see me spending some time on google tomorrow.

 

[Chester Perry]

Churchill was worried about he would be viewed by History in his actions towards Polska, he had no real concern about what actually happened.

RE the 2 Socialists, they were always going to have a pagger. Theres no way 2 such powers could have shared the continent for any real length of time. Good book on this is the Devils Alliance by Roger Moorhouse.

Churchill was a knob.

 

[SKII]

Great questions Martin especially on Japan. I can see me spending some time on google tomorrow.

Japan were at war with China before the start of WWII. There was a big power play going on in the Far East to get a grip of crucial natural resources and grow economies. Japan were told by the US to withdraw from China or lose the vital trade deals they had with them. It was against this backdrop Japan joined the Hitler led Axis nations. The US withdrew trade agreements that saw oil go East and stopped Japan selling exports in the US. This oil shortage (and a failure to resolve things diplomatically) had Japan decide to capture the oil rich Dutch East Indies (Indonesia) and to start a war with the US and Great Britain.

 

[gun ainm]

Rings a vague bell. There was no way it could have been done. If the Germans couldn't have beaten Russia - who basically won ww2 IMHO - then the allies sure a $#@! couldn't. And without the yanks it would have been laughable (if not for the awfulness)

- - - Updated - - -

A really interesting what-if is if hitler hadn't broken the nazi - soviet pact. If I could be arsed learning to play one of these fiendishly complicated war games, I'd like to give it a go as the nazis and maintain the alliance, and see what the computer says would happen.

One thing I've raised before and been too lazy to research; I have never really understood the relationship between Germany and Japan, and even how a Japanese attack was used as an argument for war with Germany - I understand that Roosevelt was looking for a pretext but not don't understand how it gave him one. I also don't understand whether their was an active Japan / Germany shared strategy or whether they just happened to be fighting the same people at the same time. Again, had the nazis had nothing to do with Japan - what would they have lost, versus the loss of bringing the U.S. Into the war?

I agree with CP that the Stalin and Hitler pact was only ever likely to be (very) temporary but I dig the alternative history theorising - Robert Harris' Fatherland is one I assume you and others are aware of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatherland_%28novel%29 i found that quite convincing are there ay others (perhaps listed here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_Axis_victory_in_World_War_II) that anyone could recommend? the The Man in the High Castle sounds intriguing....

I

 

[egb_hibs]

I agree with CP that the Stalin and Hitler pact was only ever likely to be (very) temporary but I dig the alternative history theorising - Robert Harris' Fatherland is one I assume you and others are aware of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatherland_%28novel%29 i found that quite convincing are there ay others (perhaps listed here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_Axis_victory_in_World_War_II) that anyone could recommend? the The Man in the High Castle sounds intriguing....

I

Read fatherland when it came out donks ago, good book. The man in the high tower has been made into a tv show by netflix or amazon or one of these. I want to get a hold of that.

The socialist alliance was doomed because of Hitler's insane racism. According to some Stalin trusted Hitler more than anyone else in politics. If Hitler hadn't been so mentalist, given the baw hair difference in their ideologies and shared anti semitism, who knows what they could have achieved. From Hitler's point of view, even if he couldn't get past his genocidal inclinations towards the Slavs, he should surely have waited until he had western europe sewn up including dear old blighty.

 

[Chester Perry]

Read fatherland when it came out donks ago, good book. The man in the high tower has been made into a tv show by netflix or amazon or one of these. I want to get a hold of that.

The socialist alliance was doomed because of Hitler's insane racism. According to some Stalin trusted Hitler more than anyone else in politics. If Hitler hadn't been so mentalist, given the baw hair difference in their ideologies and shared anti semitism, who knows what they could have achieved. From Hitler's point of view, even if he couldn't get past his genocidal inclinations towards the Slavs, he should surely have waited until he had western europe sewn up including dear old blighty.

His major f'up was when he did invade Russia, he treated the locals as bad as the Commies did. If he was more pragmatic they could have been welcomed as liberators in Ukraine, as they were in Kaunas. The Nazis used Ukrainians to man the Death Camps and had a few regiments of them but on the whole they were treated they way they treated all slavs. The same goes for when they set foot in Russia proper, arrive as liberators, the populace would have risen up against the Commies and if you take out the top boys, Communism would have died on its arse. Hitlers inflexibility cost him dear.

 

[Dub]

I agree with CP that the Stalin and Hitler pact was only ever likely to be (very) temporary but I dig the alternative history theorising - Robert Harris' Fatherland is one I assume you and others are aware of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatherland_%28novel%29 i found that quite convincing are there ay others (perhaps listed here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_Axis_victory_in_World_War_II) that anyone could recommend? the The Man in the High Castle sounds intriguing....

I

If you are referring to the Phillip K Dick book, although I am a fan of his writing, it isn't particularly good . If you have a dropbox account or similar PM me a link and I will try and stick a kindle friendly copy in there for you.

EDIT: Same applies to you [MENTION=101]egb_hibs[/MENTION]

 

[emerald green]

If you are referring to the Phillip K Dick book, although I am a fan of his writing, it isn't particularly good . If you have a dropbox account or similar PM me a link and I will try and stick a kindle friendly copy in there for you.

EDIT: Same applies to you [MENTION=101]egb_hibs[/MENTION]

Dubbles, can ye not jus gie us yer memories of what it was like at the timegrandpa. I would imagine you were shitting it thinking you'd have to go through all that shit all over again, this time against papa Stalin

 

[egb_hibs]

If you are referring to the Phillip K $#@! book, although I am a fan of his writing, it isn't particularly good . If you have a dropbox account or similar PM me a link and I will try and stick a kindle friendly copy in there for you.

EDIT: Same applies to you [MENTION=101]egb_hibs[/MENTION]

Thanks Dub, but I intend to skip the book and watch the show.

 

[emerald green]

Thanks Dub, but I intend to skip the book and watch the show.

I got the first episode a bit back, it had just aired in the US..... no' too sure about it tbh (looked abit gash), but, my mate (who does all the coupying etc) has said its worth sticking with....

 

[Dub]

Dubbles, can ye not jus gie us yer memories of what it was like at the timegrandpa. I would imagine you were shitting it thinking you'd have to go through all that shit all over again, this time against papa Stalin

danniiR

All you young whippersnappers will be old ****s one day

:Sparkle_Cool:

 

[Doc Shrink]

danniiR

All you young whippersnappers will be old ****s one day

:Sparkle_Cool:

Maybe no if the bastards keep taking the pish.

 

[Westside Green]

Hitler thought he could take on everybody at the same time, I remember reading about some generals warning him to take his time and victory was assured but he decided to open the Eastern Front and that was his downfall.

The idea of going to war with Russia after WW2 was just too much to take on.

 

[jockney green]

churchill and stalin never got on, old winnie boy seen them for what they were, empire builders like the nazis, he tried tae convince both the US presidents that were involved but apparently the US view was apart fae the obvious that the soviets military might would prove crucial tae victory but also that stalin and communism could be compatible wi the american way, as well some soft thinking on behalf of the americans on what stalins plans were for europe

i think the nazi-japan alliance was in place for the future plan of attacking the soviets and to squeeze the bear fae both sides

when japan attacked the US germany & italy declared war on uncle sam straight away

 

[Dub]

churchill and stalin never got on, old winnie boy seen them for what they were, empire builders like the nazis, he tried tae convince both the US presidents that were involved but apparently the US view was apart fae the obvious that the soviets military might would prove crucial tae victory but also that stalin and communism could be compatible wi the american way, as well some soft thinking on behalf of the americans on what stalins plans were for europe

i think the nazi-japan alliance was in place for the future plan of attacking the soviets and to squeeze the bear fae both sides

when japan attacked the US germany & italy declared war on uncle sam straight away

How hypocritical of Churchill to rail against an empire builder from his seat in empire building central.

 

[egb_hibs]

How hypocritical of Churchill to rail against an empire builder from his seat in empire building central.

1. Well the British empire was about to be rapidly dismantled at that point where the soviets aspired to grow
2. Whatever it's grievous crimes, the British empire can hardly be compared to the totalitarian cults of the socialist alliance

 

[Dub]

1. Well the British empire was about to be rapidly dismantled at that point where the soviets aspired to grow
2. Whatever it's grievous crimes, the British empire can hardly be compared to the totalitarian cults of the socialist alliance

How shall we quantify this Eeg. Will we use the number of people eradicated from the planet so that the conquerers could take over or is there something else that will highlight how much worse another conquerer would have been rather than us?

 

[jockney green]

How hypocritical of Churchill to rail against an empire builder from his seat in empire building central.

i do take the point yer makin but thats no the word i would use tae describe him in this situ but he got it bang on the button wi this mob mibbe as he'd seen it aw before wi his own crew

 

[egb_hibs]

Any number of ways [MENTION=4263]Dub[/MENTION] - a fairly obvious starting point would be that unlike the members of the socialist alliance the British vision wasn't to murder or enslave all of humanity.

You could look at the former British colonies who have largely been well equipped by their legacy compared to
French or Spanish colonialism never mind the Russian or German reichs.

British imperialism committed some horrendous crimes but as before it doesn't compare to these death cults and its some feat of relativism to attempt to do so albeit one that the luvvie establishment specialise in.

I say this as one whose ancestors had to flee the Country that arguably suffered worst under the British heel.

 

[jockney green]

as a comparison i'd say the british empire was built on resources, trade and the control of these things wi the small amount of brits being at the head of the hierarchies they instilled as opposed tae a lebensraum project or military buffer zone under the auspices of an ideological state

further testament may be seen in the longevity, relative successes and also legacies of either regime

though am sure its a moot point tae anyone who suffered under either the heel or the whip