For the purpose of this analysis, I’m splitting the war up into three main phases. In the first phase people can defend Churchill if they want to. They can make that case. Its a tough case to make but its for them to make and they may be able to do it.
But then we have the turnaround phase. And this starts from Barborossa. When the two allies, Stalin and Hitler, who started the war, each preparing to double-cross the other, but Hitler doing the double-cross first on 22nd June 1941. Try defending Churchill after that???? Now I think there is a marked difference in the quality of Churchills decisions before and after Barbarossa. And later I’ll try and tease out THE PRINCIPLE of why that was. It wasn’t that senility suddenly kicked in. There is a principle of war that I’m teasing out that we Australians ought to be adhering to from here on in.
Compared to the criminal behaviour and incompetence of the Americans Churchill still looks good, so most of the blame for us losing the war lies with Washington. Bear in mind NOT AMERICA. We can be grateful to the Americans and curse the memory of Washington top executive management at the same time. These are not contradictory sentiments at all.
The allies survived the war they did not win it. Stalin won that war. If we did win World War II, it was not until the early 1990’s.
So Barbarossa kicked off on the 22nd of June 1941. It was only two months later that Churchill wasted valuable men and materiel by invading neutral Iran. Clearly he had the approval, if not the urging of Washington to do so, since the goal was to get Lend Lease aid through to Stalin. And we now know of course that the communists had immense influence over Washington policy. Invading neutral countries involves killing of course. Killing of people who had done you no harm. A cowardly surprise attack on a neutral country. To win a war you might as well start by DESERVING to win.
This cowardly attack on Iran happened two months after Barbarossa’s beginning. So valuable resources were diverted from the protection of strategic British assets, in order to help out Stalin. Was every British soldier so well supplied? Was every ground action taken by British soldiers lavishly backed by carpet bombing and relieving fresh troops? Were all British strategic military points, reinforced with near gratuitous level oversupplies of men and materiel, such that there was a large margin for error?
The answer is no, no and no respectively. Now those of you who are not World War II buffs just think of what you would expect to happen next????
What would be poetic justice for the British Empire after so misusing their resources and attacking and murdering individuals in a neutral country who had done nothing to them?
Singapore was lost just a few months after in February. Its exactly the sort of thing you would expect to happen directly from Washington-British policy in the months before that. And of course it was a disaster because if you control the strategic points, then you control the logistics, then you can just build up your own capacities and wage proxy war, for the most part, until the other crowd stumbles. But the British lost Singapore, thanks to their attacking Iran and aiding the Soviets in preference to reinforcing their own men. This exposed the Dutch East Indies and Australia. And all because men and materiel were being wasted on the Soviets.
Of course I suspect Washington Commie influence all the way. So I tend to reserve judgement a little bit on Churchill in most cases, but clearly he fucked up. Prior to Barbarossa it must have been a Herculean task just to stay alive and keep an army in the field, and keep your population from falling into despair, so I don’t want to do much in the way of backseat-driving for that time period. I’ll leave any criticisms of Churchill prior to June 1941 up to others.
But after Barbarossa a drovers dog could have lead us to victory.
A drovers dog could have lead the allies to victory after Barbarossa began, but somehow the allies lost anyway, and Stalin won. A drovers dog could have won for the allies and could have done so ethically from that point on, yet somehow the allies seemed to want to outdo the other parties in the most viscious of war crimes. The most viscious, senseless AND MILITARILY USELESS of war-crimes.
Now how could this happen? We must find out. Because if we don’t set the record straight, then we’ll have lunatics like Rudd doing the most hateful things in his effort to ape the behaviour of people who clearly did the wrong thing during world war II. The shabby behaviour of allied leaders has lodged itself in the popular mind as being appropriate and effective. These various shabby behaviours that I’m thinking of were neither.
WHAT IS THE LESSON TO BE LEARNED FROM ALL THIS?
I think you maintain a fierce loyalty to your own soldiers and their Mothers at all times. I think your own soldiers come first and you shower THEM with air cover and resources right up to the point of diminishing returns. I think you only try and control what you CAN control in your war efforts. You act with righteousness and honour and you don’t compromise these most important intangibles, in the hope of getting assistance from allies or in joint actions.
Churchill ought to have done nothing to suck up to the Americans. Well actually thats NOT QUITE IT. More pointedly; Churchill ought not have compromised his own strategy and soldiers to curry favour with The American administration. It was fine to suck up to the Americans IN OTHER WAYS. But never let this get in the way of British Empire Strategy or of what ought to have been his staunch loyalty to his own lads.
The Americans ought to have done nothing to suck up to the Soviets(IN THE WAY I HAVE EXPLAINED. OR AT THE COSTS AT WHICH I HAVE OUTLINED). It was this round-robin sucky-fucky that made us lose and had our side committing appalling war crimes. It was these round about attempts to curry favour that lead to the wider plans being both strategically handicapped and open to communist influence.
You act like good allies. You help your allies in the ways of your choosing. But you don’t surrender strategy to them. We are making this mistake now. What are we doing in Afghanistan? We are currying favour with our ally rather then helping them in a way appropriate to our own self-interest. We see that we are in a state of unreadiness. We see that our ally is in a state of financial bankruptcy. An obvious match between helping our ally in our own strategic self-interest presents itself. We ought to pull out of Afghanistan, come home, but make it up to our ally by pulling our weight in a different way. And that different way is re-arming with American weapons.
So thats the way you integrate strategy. If everyone is thinking about their ally in a suck-up sort of way rather then integrating self-interested strategy, with looking for an opportunity to be helpful….. then we get overall strategic nonsense.
The conventional view of Allied strategic behaviour in World War II is obvious lunacy. The conventional view is a series of mantras that are of a loony-tunes nature and self-contradictory. Perhaps we will see some of these mindless zombie-like mantras in the comments in this or on other threads.
Does anyone come out clean from our side? Yes Patton comes out smelling like Roses. Always against the hysterical behaviour of bombing cities. And in no way a stooge to the Russians. How about the others? Well they ought to have kicked up a stink or resigned. Eisenhower is tarnished. Why didn’t he resign? Churchill is tarnished. Why did he participate in the Dresdon bombing and other bombings of cities after Barbarossa?
The whole thing was just an appalling shambles. Effectively allied policy was pretty much all for Stalin and nothing against Stalin.
Macarthars island-hopping strategy was righteous. But he was undersupplied. All those producer goods that could have made the extra bombs for enhanced air cover . All that production effort that could have equipped the extra men that could have been fighting on the Pacific Islands….. Well all that production effort was diverted earlier on to help Stalin. All the bombs being dropped on German cities could have been used earlier saving the lives of GI’s on the Pacific Islands and the Japanese could have been forced into behaviour of our choosing earlier on with less American dead.
The consensus position is nuts. They say the Soviets would have won against Germany no matter what. Thats bullshit of course. But if thats true we could have all gone home after Barbarossa began and should have. Or if this was true we could have redirected our efforts to beat the Japs, or to Co-opt them to fight Stalin.
It doesn’t matter what the consensus people say, you will see that it defies all logic and is drooling loonie-toons stuff.
Now how about the bombing of cities in general? As a general principle? Well if it was at the Germans coal liquification plants thats all well and good. But non-precision bombs ought to have only been used to aid ground troops in most other situations.
Consider a general rule of thumb. If the opponents ground forces are dug in …… lets imagine you have to match their firepower 3 to 1 just to be equal. And 10 to 1 to bring most of your fellows home in one piece. So what do you do? Offensive action then becomes a nightmare of blood-letting on your side.
This is where bombs, used hysterically to murder German women, children and civilians, can be used to alter the above logic. By carpet-bombing the dug in soldiers you can then make ground with slashing arc-movements (as an example) where your firepower is at least 10 to 1 to your opponents, and the prior air bombing has stopped them having the where-withal to regroup and attack your flanks.
This by way, not of affecting to show advanced military knowledge, but just to demonstrate the IN-PRINCIPLE-IDIOCY of committing war-crimes with valuable pilots, plane-fuel, and bombs when all of that is needed in support of your kids on the ground. So its a double-atrocity from your sides point of view. To be wasting resources on committing war crimes, when you could be using these resources to make sure your own lads win quickly and are sent home in one piece to their Mothers.
But somehow our leadership screwed it up. This is because the top three levels of executive management in Washington were lunatics and war criminals. At least down to whoever was bossing Eisenhower around. And Eisenhower was a weak enough man not to have resisted the Washington Zeitgeist. But its also because of this principle I have outlined. The principle of it being a grave mistake to second-guess your ally in order to curry favour, as opposed to looking for opportunities to be helpful to your ally, but only in the context of enhancing your own strategy with your own soldiers as your top priority.
More history needs to be done to resolve these matters. Since our crimes, those of the Nazis, and those of the Soviets were all of one piece.
So what have I done. I’ve shown that allied behaviour after Barbarossa was a shambles. I think I’ve teased out the principle of the main reason it was a shambles. And using that principle I’ve highlighted how our behaviour in Afghanistan is all wrong, and in doing so I’ve shown, just what it is we ought to be doing, as a good ally, instead of continuing with this senselessness in Afghanistan.