Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
We Could Have Won WWII But We Decided Winston Was a Bridge Too Far
10 May 1947, London Zeitung
by Stanley Baldwin
There was a time in May of 1940 that we came close to giving the country over to Winston [Churchill] but we turned away from that path and awarded the Prime Minister slot to Lord Halifax. Yes, it is possible that we could have won this last war if we had chosen him but it was considered indecorous and was thought of as perhaps telegraphing our desperation to the enemy. We knew Winston had a martial background and that he wanted to make a real fight of it but the cost to our reputations would have been too high. The war was rightly called the Phoney War because we had all but lost everything by that late date. As it turned out, of course, the war only lasted less than a year anyway.
Water under the bridge. Winning isn’t everything, after all. Think of the devastation that would have followed if Winston had had his way with the military. What would have happened, I wonder: bombing cities? fire bombing? desperate refugees fleeing across the country? starvation? homelessness?
What scared me the most was the prospect of the Russians in Berlin and us still defeated anyway. All Stalin needed was a couple more years to turn the tide — and with Winston as PM that might have given him that edge. Then Stalin would have had all the countries east of the Baltic and the Adriatic and probably more.
Later that year, with the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor, we saw the Americans entry into the Pacific war and at least — so far — they have knocked that barbaric regime back on it heels. So, all was not lost. Much good has come from the decisions we made at that time. It’s not perfect but it’s a result that allows us to hold our heads up high these days, knowing we had performed our duties well and to the best of our abilities.
[Translated from the original German]
Published in Politics
Comparing Trump to Churchill is an ambiguous comment at best.
Yes, mr Churchill is very unlike Mr Johnson and Mr Obama (hard to choose between them for worst president).
And VJ day wasn’t until August (or September for the formal surrender). Churchill was at the Potsdam conference when he got the boot.
Well, I certainly appreciate you explaining that because pre-election there was such a shortage of NT’s willing to explain their thinking that I really needed someone to tell me why they took that position.
Moderator Note:
Swearing in another language is still swearing.You’ve managed cheers from the usual cohort and boos from the other usual cohort and convinced no one of anything. [Redacted]
…sez you. (And the German shouldn’t save you from a CoC slap. )
I don’t agree. Ricochet has many members who don’t often comment, but presumably at least they read the MF, and so might even non-members. I see some unfamiliar names among the Likes on this post.
Light the candle, that’s all those of us on the side of enlightenment can do, and @larrykoler has kindled a clear flame.
They put him back in the case that reads “In case of emergency break glass” and fixed the glass.
The comparison I did was to the gathering storm issue with the left in this country that I see and most anti-Trump people don’t. The only clear comparison is that the attitudes expressed by the anti-Trump people would actually put them in the position of putting the good of their country below other priorities like decorum and character issues. Churchill was faced with a similar issue — he had to decide if saving his country was worth supporting Stalin. These are the decisions that adults deal with in real life.
You seem to forget that the audience we should focus on is not with the people who comment — that “usual cohort.” The effect of such articles on lurkers inside Ricochet and, when on the main page, the many people who read Ricochet is what makes it worthwhile to post articles that support the good side of a long-standing debate.
How did supporting Stalin save the UK again?
Because the Russians won the war? (with a little help from the western allies).
By “win the war” I mean “beat the Nazis”.
@zafar, why do you ask that question? I am genuinely puzzled.
Okay Larry, you’re right and I should apologize for shortchanging the depth and complexity of the Never Trump argument in November 2016.
Trump, in addition to the personal embarrassment, was going to lead the GOP to catastrophic losses of both house of Congress for the foreseeable future, was a NY liberal who would quickly align himself with buddy Schumer’s agenda, would appoint his sister or Judge Judy to SCOTUS, and was going to hollow out the military, withdraw from the world and sacrifice NATO to the Russians and the Mideast to Iran. He was also a faithless schemer who would betray his most faithful supporters and cave on immigration and DOJ harrassment of churches and school districts. His commitments to actually follow through on Jerusalem and Paris were, of course, laughable.
If I were a Never Trump Republican, I’d stick with the personal embarrassment line.
It’s far less embarrassing.
Correct. I had a typo; it should have been plural. However, the author of his first book, written before Trump developed ironclad Nondisclosure Agreements, notes that Trump would riff on themes orally, but never did much of the writing itself.
There is no question that Churchill wrote his own books, and he received the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1953.
Churchill didn’t “get the boot,” his party got the boot in the UK’s parliamentary system, a system that would not have saddled us with the election of Trump.
I am not at all embarrassed for having had most of those concerns, among others. Your sneering tone notwithstanding, there were some possible outcomes of a Trump Presidency that would have been very bad. I am nothing but pleased that we have dodged those bullets, so far. I give Trump credit for all that he has accomplished, without becoming blind to his failings. And I give him credit, unlike his predecessor and unlike yourself, for not engaging in endless recriminations against those who did not support him in the last election. Listen, you won. Have the grace to stop complaining and stop attacking your fellow Republicans and Ricochetti. “Wounded pride” my [CoC]!
You’re making the same “Flight 93” argument that people have already decided on. I’ll grant that your artistic license was clever. I’m still not convinced that we were in an existential crisis in this or any other election. If any single person makes that much of a difference then we’re well past the crisis point and sifting through the wreckage of the crash.
Those bullets were designed, formed and thrown by the left. Their use by the anti-Trump faction was the biggest and most egregious abandonment of principle that any faction on the right has ever done in this or the last century.
Clarity over agreement: Yes, this is exactly where we differ.
You are joking right? I can agree that the Reds were good bullet catchers and time wasters, and thus they contributed, but they did not decide WW II. But this distracts from the statement I questioned. How much did the UK provide to the Reds. And of that, how much originated from the USA and Canada?
Which is why we can still be friends an need to do a meet up again. Of course my argument can be turned on me. If we could have survived Hillary (though taken quite a hit as a result) then surely we’ll survive Trump. I suppose the next step of the disagreement, or the current one at least, is whether or not we’ll take a hit for it. I think it’s mostly a mixed bag. Some good stuff has been accomplished, but there’s certainly some not good outcomes in the works. I find him to be too swayed by passions (not bad in itself to some degree but terrible as a main determiner of action) and not grounded enough in concrete principles that should normally guide us through the moments of passion. His tweet about guns today is an example, though taken in context of the preceding tweets was less bad that it appears in isolation.
Total War mongering doesn’t mesh well with standards and evidence.
The Russians (not the Soviets) won the European war. They had to face between 70 and 90% of the German onslaught. Western powers never saw more than 30% of the German army. We assisted and the UK sacrificed more than we did overall and their direct and indirect assistance to Russia was essential. Some people need to read their history.
http://www.axishistory.com/axis-nations/134-campaigns-a-operations/campaigns-a-operations/2085-number-of-german-divisions-by-front-in-world-war-ii
Thanks, very interesting.
No, it would have granted almost unchecked executive power to moral paragons like Dennis Hastert.
From July 1941 to May 1945, the Germans never had *fewer* than 124 divisions on the Russian front (and usually many more). In that same time period the Germans never had *more* than 79 divisions on the western front (and usually many less).
But, the divisions in Germany have to be counted, too, as a counter to the Russians more than the western powers throughout most of the war. But, I see by the data that it’s complicated.
Absolutely. The Russians lost some 25 million people in the war, more than any other nation. I’ve thought often that Russia deserves far more credit for helping to win the war than the allies gave it, no doubt owing to the contentious relationship that arose as a result of the Iron Curtain. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think most military historians give the Russians the bulk of the credit. Our lend/lease program was a big factor too.
People who read history call the nations involved by their name not an ethnic group. The Soviets at various moments did engage a majority of the Heer and Luftwaffe forces but that does not mean that they decided the conflict. There were moments when the UK and France were engaging the majority of the Heer and Luftwaffe, they did not decide the war or the European theater and neither did the Soviets.
War may be about destruction, but the logistics enable that destruction and the USSR was logistically kept alive thanks to the USA. The USSR lost its agricultural heartland during Operation Barbarossa and did not even secure it till late 1943, roughly 2 and half years later (not considering the time it takes to use that war torn land and the failure of Soviet Agriculture). Men do not fight without food and the food they received was from the USA, along with clothing, medical supplies, trucks, trains, small arms, and heavier ordinance.
Similar assistance (on a greater scale) was also given to the UK and started before Operation Barbarossa. The USA was the deciding factor of the war and won the European theater.