Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Other Stuff
The Clubhouse Bar
Greatest men of the XXth Century
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="William18" data-source="post: 657107" data-attributes="member: 38439"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="William18, post: 657107, member: 38439"] 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. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Other Stuff
The Clubhouse Bar
Greatest men of the XXth Century
Top