Greatest men of the XXth Century

[LittleGuy]

On Churchill he's my most Overated man of the 20th century(closely followed by JFK).....A decent orator and "man on the spot" no doubt, but every strategic decision he made was a complete and utter fiasco! He had his hands all over that farcical Gallipoli idea in the 1st World War in the 2nd there were constant cock ups and the British military command was constantly irratated and frightened by his alcohol related decisions/suggestions. The Soviets are the ones that did the heavy lifting in defeating Hitler and let's not pretend otherwise.

If you read Manstein and/or Guderian's memoirs it's clear Britain was saved by Hitler's reluctance(either because he stressed about the risk as Manstein suggests or Guderian and others point more towards him actively still hoping the U.K. would come to his side) to immediately invade after the Fall of France.

Edit: No I take that back JFK is the most overated person of the 20th century, and possibly ever to be frank.

 

[Big Ewis]

my bro's reaaaaaaaaally into history (thank God, because given how much I know he makes up for us siblings !) and I remember him telling me he had all kinds of sources that showed Hitler was so profoundly race-oriented his reluctance to attack England was in part due to him considering England a good Aryan race, Germanic and therefor viable, and that (in part) made him reluctant and indecisive in the beginning. Then of course, the fact England is an island, much harder to start an assault, diplomatic relations, the course of his own actions elsewhere, etc..etc..etc...but there was indeed an ideological reason there.

However, furthermore, and moreover, nevertheless Churchill could smoke the shiit out of cigars.

 

[LittleGuy]

Manstein said the failure to attack Britain was by far the greatest German mistake of the war. He makes a compelling argument that Hitler's plan was to frigthen them into submission and/or alliance. The main part of his argument is that the operation isn't actually as technically difficult as some have suggested due to the narrowness of the Channel, if launched immediately many of the British troops would have been lacking equipment left in France, it was actually going to be two Canadian divisions assigned to the beaches(as they were fresh and had not been used in France).

The use of the Luftwaffe(and other axis air forces, mainly Italian) is Manstein's supporting evidence, if the Germans had concentrated all avalable air power and used it in a short extremely intense burst it could have cleared a way for a German invasion. The Battle of Britain was lost cause from the start since it bought Britain and the Empire time to marshall it's forces and seek outside assistance.

His memoir is a great read, my favourite part is when he focuses on how the enemy should have reacted to his(and other German) plans, he goes into great detail in parts on how the Poles and Russians should have carried out their operations. Frankly the Russians could have won the war a lot earlier if they'd been strategically skilled enough.

 

[Big Ewis]

intéressant, Monsieur LittleGuy...yeh well let bygones be bisexuals, or hwvr the saying goes...thanks England, US and A and Canada ! I can still speak French and eat French today, and it's all thanks to you....(well, especially the last two....)

 

[smartcooky]

Sorry for the rant but:

If he wasn't white or west of the Iron Curtain, he would have gone down in history as a war criminal. Had a Nazi succeeded in committing the same actions Churchill had, they'd have appeared at the Nuremberg trials.

Funny how in modern times, we get uppity about drone strikes, which may or may not kill civilians on a case-by-case basis. A small offence compared to the fire bombing of cities in which hundreds of thousands live, specifically targeting civilians. Yet we revere the leader behind the latter.

Winners write history, I suppose, and propaganda cements them as the good guys. Needless to say, I am not a fan of his.

The Nuremberg Trials were solely about the Final Solution (determined at die Wannseekonferenz in early 1942) and the subsequent attempt at the ethnic cleansing of Jews and other "undesirable", non-Aryan races. Perhaps you could tell me which ethnic groups were dragged away in their millions to English concentration camps and slaughtered?

The Swastika could now be fluttering in the breeze above the Houses or Parliament instead of the Union Flag, and you would be speaking German instead of English, unless of course, you have Jewish ancestry, then you wouldn't be around to argue about it.

 

[LittleGuy]

The Nuremberg Trials were solely about the Final Solution (determined at die Wannseekonferenz in early 1942) and the subsequent attempt at the ethnic cleansing of Jews and other "undesirable", non-Aryan races. Perhaps you could tell me which ethnic groups were dragged away in their millions to English concentration camps and slaughtered?

The Swastika could now be fluttering in the breeze above the Houses or Parliament instead of the Union Flag, and you would be speaking German instead of English, unless of course, you have Jewish ancestry, then you wouldn't be around to argue about it.

No that is incorrect, these were the terms of indictment(if you are talking about the most famous trial of the leading figures). The Doctors and Judges trials are generally more holocaust based, other German figures with little connection to the holocaust were also charged in other seperate trials.

1.Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of a crime against peace
2.Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace
3.War crimes
4.Crimes against humanity

The last one deals primarily with the holocaust though part of 3 could be tied in as well.

Some specific cases of Nazi or (German military) leaders charged with little to no involvement in the holocaust

Admiral Doenitz was charged with waging unrestricted submarine warfare(and the American head of the submarine service actually defended him saying that was their policy also).

Admiral Raeder was charged with waging aggressive warfare(mainly for planning and advocating the Norwegian invasion, something the Brits had strongly thought of doing themselves though obviously their occupation would have been of a different nature).

Walther Funk, Minister of economics(very loose connection to holocaust with the liquidating of Jewish possesions, even Goering described him as a lowly subordinate).

Schact was also charged in a similar vein, despite he himself having been in a concentration camp since 1944(he was acquitted at least).

Von Papen, previous Chancellor of Germany who only served the reich in Ambassadorial positions,(was acquitted)

General Jodl, waging aggressive war, condemned to death and later acquitted posthumously when it was shown he had commited himself to only military affairs.

Keitel, stronger case here as he signed execution orders and war crimes documents(in particular the Commisar order), was more guilty of having no moral resistance to Hitler rather than being a horrible human being himself.

 

[squirrel]

TRF little guy is the on the money when he says the Russians were the backbone in defeating Germany, and they did it with little help from the allies

 

[LittleGuy]

TRF little guy is the on the money when he says the Russians were the backbone in defeating Germany, and they did it with little help from the allies

It's where the bulk of the war was, it especially annoys me when people discuss the African front as if it were a major campaign when(with the exception of the final days where Hitler stupidly pushed in reinforcements) Rommel only ever had at most three German Divisions there plus 5-6 Italian ones under his command, yep that's right the majority of the Afrika Corps was actually Italian and very poorly equipped. By contrast over 150 German divisions were in Russia at most points if not more, not to mention dozens of Romanian ones and other Axis nations contingents including Italians, Finns(who refused to advance beyond predetermined points), Hungarians, Slovaks, even a volunteer Spanish division.

The Soviet manpower and civilian losses are utterly shocking and can't even be accurately counted it ranges from estimates of 21.7 million to as high as 44 million depending on source and interpretation(whether to include certain pandemics an famines in the number).

Lesser known is the role Russia played in Japan's defeat, the Japanese had a border skirmish with the Soviets in Mongolia in the mid-late 30's where they got their butts handed to them, it permanently scared them from taking offensive action against the Russian Far east which freed up valuble Svietunits to save Moscow in 1941. In 1945 the Soviet decision to declare war on Japan freaked the Imperial government as much as if not more than the American atomic bombs. In less than a week the Soviets smashed a 1.5 million man Japanese army in Manchuria which barely made a dent in their advance.

Edit: I'm not saying this to trash the Allied armies, my Grandfather was in many of the campaigns and was captured a few days after D-Day(Sgt. Major Stacey). Indeed the Western allies played a part and a vital one in the defeat of Nazi Germany, but most people's knowledge of the war makes it seem like we were equal contributors when the overwhelming evidence points to the Soviet Union baring the brunt.

 

[smartcooky]

TRF little guy is the on the money when he says the Russians were the backbone in defeating Germany, and they did it with little help from the allies

So tell me...

Is this the very same Russians who were quite happy to stand aside in a non-aggression agreement with Germany and allow the Germans to over-run Europe?

Is this the same Russians who made large economic offerings to Germany to support their war efforts, which Germany accepted with the signing of an agreement for such on January 10, 1941?

Is this the same Russians who would NOT EVER have fought in WWII at all were it not for the fact that the Germans attacked them first in Operation Barbarossa (June 1941)

Its those Russians right?

If that weak-kneed pisspot Neville Chamberlain had still been British Prime minister instead of Churchill in 1940, England would have had their arse handed to them. The Germans would have achieved air supremacy by the end of September (because Chamberlain would still have been waving bits of paper around ("peace in our time?", yeah, right). Operation Sea-Lion (the invasion of Britain) would have taken place and the war would have been over by Christmas, with England's defeat.

 

[squirrel]

actually cookie it wouldn't have mattered who was British prime minister because if the Russians didn't fight back at Stalingrad you can rest assured that England was screwed, I might add that the Russians were well within their rights to stand aside and not get involved at the time
Winston Churchill wanted to invade Germany in the early 1930s because they had a state run national bank and he thought it would ruin the worlds financial markets, circumstances justified a war later on but I don't think Churchill gave two ****s about the jews, gypies etc

 

[Peat]

Most won wars involve large slices of luck. Most won wars include making huge mistakes and getting away with them, moments when the enemy could have pretty much won it if they had realised. In war, even the mediocre is quite an achievement.

I would freely agree with a lot of the criticisms and comments about the importance of the Russians. I would offer more about the bungling of the Mediterranean and African campaign. But when push comes to shove, he held Britain to doing the right thing and all it could, in a way that is very difficult to imagine anyone else doing. Sometimes doing something is more important than how it is done.

 

[big ginger 8]

Nikola Tesla, without alternating current most of the world would still not have electricity. I know it was done in the late 1880's but he still died in the 20th century and it was the building blocks of modern life.

 

[Feicarsinn]

Nikola Tesla, without alternating current most of the world would still not have electricity. I know it was done in the late 1880's but he still died in the 20th century and it was the building blocks of modern life.

Ah yes, Tesla. The hipster's physicist. I can't figure out why he gets so much attention from the general public, while guys like Maxwell and Hertz, who made far bigger contributions to EM, are relatively unknown.

 

[Big Ewis]

"Greatest men of the 20th century" ?!! pffff, you've gotta be kidding me !...who the FK made that threa...oh right. .. Hmm...I DO have lots of free time these days...

 

[Tadginator]

General smuts

 

[Groundhog]

Sean Lemass, the father of Modern Ireland and far sounder than Churchill.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Sean Lemass, the father of Modern Ireland and far sounder than Churchill.

Haha, you said lame-ass...

 

[William18]

Just seeing this now. You can easily argue that the Second World War was basically a Soviet vs German war. However, Britain's role was still absolutely vital. I think Britain had shown enough against Germany in the Battle of Britain to say that the Germans would have had a very hard time beating Britain if the war just involved those two countries. I think some sort of stalemate would have resulted.

What you cannot discount is the affect which the British in being in the war had on history. If the British weren't in the war or had lost to Germany then when the Soviets invaded they could have taken over large parts of Western Europe as well. Then you have a "real" cold war where the Soviets have a lot more power. The result of the Cold War would be the same but it would be a lot more confrontational and a lot worse for a lot of Europeans. Yes the Soviets could have defeated the Germans by themselves but they would have replaced (did replace in some parts) National Socialism with something almost as bad.

As for Churchill, he was the classic man for the moment. I think he has been overly criticised for a lot of his actions such as Gallipoli which wasn't really his fault. SSure if the war hadn't happened he would be a minor post script in history. However, you can't discount his leadership during the Second World War. There were some strategic advantages to the bombings he ordered. I'm happy to look at someone holistically and say on balance they were a great leader.

 

[big ginger 8]

Ah yes, Tesla. The hipster's physicist. I can't figure out why he gets so much attention from the general public, while guys like Maxwell and Hertz, who made far bigger contributions to EM, are relatively unknown.

How dare you imply that I'm a hipster. Pistols at dawn.

Also neither Maxwell or Hertz survived to the 20th Century.

 

[Icemn]

Nelson mandela