Did the British bomb their display? - Page 2




 
--
 
July 21st, 2017  
BritinAfrica
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
Who else can you lay the blame on?
The two senior British leaders (Secretary of State for war and the head of the Navy) said the plan was unfeasible, none of the Generals involved were enthusiastic and Churchill had to go around those who would normally make the decision to get it through.
Therein lays the problem, the senior officers were not enthusiastic about the plan, possibly they didnt give their best efforts


Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
See I am not a Monty fan either, I tend to see him as an overblow, pompous prick whos reputation was built on the destruction of other peoples careers and by claiming their successes as his own (for example Auchinleck, in my opinion, should have been given the victory at Alamein as it was his plan), where left to his own devices he was a failure (Caen, Sicily, Arnhem).
Monty wasnt Churchills first choice, the man selected Gott it was unfortunate was shot down and killed. However, Monty got the 8th Army fit then refused to move before he was properly equipped.

In my opinion the biggest of Montys failures was the Arnhem drop, allowing it to go ahead despite intel that there was a SS Panzer the 9th Hoenstauffen unit resting in the area.



Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
One of the quotes I recall (but have never been able to verify) was basically Churchill was being spoken to about the loss of ships in the straights and his reply was essentially "What does it matter we can always build more ships".
He essentially didn't give a rats arse about the men on those ships.
You know as well as I do. that in any campaign there are going to be horrendous losses of men and equipment. As George pointed out the ridiculous "Over the top" tactics that claimed so many lives that did not have to be lost. My Grandfather was on the Somme, he didn't talk much about it, except to say "Far too many men gave their lives needlessly." Douglas Haig was told to change his tactics as Britain was running out of men. By 1919 the only males in many villages and towns were the elderly or the very young. Then there were the PALS Battalions, such as railway companies of heavy industry provided man power, many were wiped out.

However, Churchill was the right man at the time during WW2
July 21st, 2017  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BritinAfrica
You know as well as I do. that in any campaign there are going to be horrendous losses of men and equipment. As George pointed out the ridiculous "Over the top" tactics that claimed so many lives that did not have to be lost. My Grandfather was on the Somme, he didn't talk much about it, except to say "Far too many men gave their lives needlessly." Douglas Haig was told to change his tactics as Britain was running out of men. By 1919 the only males in many villages and towns were the elderly or the very young. Then there were the PALS Battalions, such as railway companies of heavy industry provided man power, many were wiped out.

However, Churchill was the right man at the time during WW2
The problem with the comment is not that his actions got people killed but rather the callous nature of the comment, I am sure that if Norman Schwarzkopf had said "we are going to lose a couple of hundred tanks and crews but who cares we can build more tanks" in a news conference he would have been unemployed the next day.

It is not that people do not understand there will be casualties it is that when you try and make the casualties less important than the equipment and then downplay that to nothing that cant be replaced its shows the person in a vastly different light.

Churchill in my opinion did not care about the lifes of those under him which is shown in that comment and his desire to accept any plan that achieved his goals despite its ludicrous nature and cost.
July 22nd, 2017  
BritinAfrica
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
The problem with the comment is not that his actions got people killed but rather the callous nature of the comment, I am sure that if Norman Schwarzkopf had said "we are going to lose a couple of hundred tanks and crews but who cares we can build more tanks" in a news conference he would have been unemployed the next day.

It is not that people do not understand there will be casualties it is that when you try and make the casualties less important than the equipment and then downplay that to nothing that cant be replaced its shows the person in a vastly different light.

Churchill in my opinion did not care about the lifes of those under him which is shown in that comment and his desire to accept any plan that achieved his goals despite its ludicrous nature and cost.
The difference is, Norman Schwarzkopf was in the spot light of TV media, Douglas Haig did not have the media crawling all over his backside waiting to castigate him. If truth were told many senior officers accept the loss of life and material as consequence of warfare, whether Churchill cared about the loss of life I have no idea, I'm sure that he never actually said it.
--
July 23rd, 2017  
MontyB
 
 
The question remains though, did the British blow up its own display.

I have strong doubts that the Germans did it as there was really nothing it for them, for the British it could have dragged the USA into it (although I think unlikely without concrete evidence of German involvement) but it was a very risky strategy.

One thing to consider here is that Churchill only became PM on the 10th of May could he have organised anything like this within the space of 3 weeks?

I seriously doubt that Chamberlain would have been behind it.
July 24th, 2017  
BritinAfrica
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
The question remains though, did the British blow up its own display.

I have strong doubts that the Germans did it as there was really nothing it for them, for the British it could have dragged the USA into it (although I think unlikely without concrete evidence of German involvement) but it was a very risky strategy.

One thing to consider here is that Churchill only became PM on the 10th of May could he have organised anything like this within the space of 3 weeks?

I seriously doubt that Chamberlain would have been behind it.
Quite frankly, it wouldnt surprise me if they did.
July 24th, 2017  
MontyB
 
 
I would be more likely to believe the German-American Bund than either the British or Germans directly.
July 28th, 2017  
George
 
Churchill was wanting the US in the War, but I doubt they would believe the US would go to war over a bombing of a display.
 


Similar Topics
Israel rightfully own the West Bank .
How Would You Solve the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict?
Tom Gross on the forgotten Rachels
What If Iran Gets the Bomb? Good Analysis
counter? anti?