RUINED BERLIN AFIRE AFTER 2D BOMBING; U.S. PLANES SMASH AT TOULON AND SOFIA (11/25/43)

Microfilm-New York Times archives, Monterey Public Library | 11/25/43 | Drew Middleton, George Axelsson, Milton Bracker, C.R. Cunningham, C.P. Trussell, Ralph Parker, more

[iowamark]

Churchill so desperate for FDR’s attention that he is willing to dance with Pa Watson for FDR’s amusement. FDR is now more interested in Stalin than Churchill.

[colorado tanker]

At the Armor School we got to crawl all over a T-62 the Israelis had captured in the 1973 War. It was a piece of crap. They had not adopted even simple technology like quick disconnects for fuel and electrical lines. It would take them hours to change a power pack we could change in less than an hour. Of course, as you suggest, they would probably just abandon a broken down tank.

It was dangerous too. There was no turret basket. Instead there was a disk on the floor that turned with the main gun. If the loader didn't shuffle as the gun turned, he could be crushed. And someone got a bright idea for not wasting space. The interior of one of the ammo storage honeycombs was used as a fuel tank. We knew right where that was.

Even though their equipment was crap, they just had so damn many of them.

[BroJoeK]

Ref: Churchill dancing to FDR's tune — it was worse than that, including one story of Churchill emerging naked from his bath to discover FDR waiting to learn if the Brit had something to hide. He didn't.

The bottom line is that FDR forced Churchill to sacrifice the British Empire in order to save Great Britain.
By contrast, Stalin hugely expanded the Soviet Empire, albeit at the sacrifice of nearly 30 Soviet souls.

And what did America sacrifice?
Well, our innocence & isolation from the world, for starters.
And next on the chopping block was our previous commitment to limited, constitutional & non-interventionist government.
I could go on...

[BroJoeK]

Sorry for my scr*w-up.
The post above was intended to be for you, responding to your comment on Churchill & FDR.

[BroJoeK]

Sacrifice of 30 MILLION Soviet souls.

[henkster]

Even Hitler didn’t want to dismember the British Empire. His deal was “Keep your Empire, let me have the Continent.” And other than the bad effects of dealing with a European Contiental hegemony, Hitler couldn’t have deprived Britain of her Empire even if he had wished. Stalin could not have deprived Britain of her Empire. But FDR could, and did. One wonders whether Churchill made the strategically correct choice. But there are so many other factors to consider. Would a Hitler-dominated Europe, for a decade or two, have been worse than Stalin’s USSR dominating half of Europe for two generations?

I don’t envy Churchill. It seems he was left with hard choices, none of them inherently good.

[colorado tanker]

The sun was beginning to set on the Empire anyhow. It was clear to all that India, the "Jewel in the Crown," would have to be given independence after the War. Independence was in Labour's 1945 Manifesto. South Africa, although led now by the brilliant and loyal Smuts, had a Boer white majority and they were never much for Britain. Egypt would be loyal so long as British troops occupied it and suppressed the nationalism that periodically erupted in riots.

I presume you are referring to the Atlantic Charter, which affirmed national self-determination as a war aim. Churchill never interpreted that to mean the Empire, but FDR and many nationalist groups in the Empire did. As events played out, however, the Charter and America's attitude became irrelevant. Britain was bankrupt after the war. The Empire less India and South Africa (and in 1952 Egypt) was an expensive drain, returning nothing to the mother country. There really was no choice but to begin to let go. In the end, Britain chose the wise path, in contrast to France who fought bloody, expensive and ultimately futile wars to hold onto its colonies.

[BroJoeK]

henkster: "I don’t envy Churchill. It seems he was left with hard choices, none of them inherently good."

Colorado tanker: "The sun was beginning to set on the Empire anyhow."

I don't fault Churchill, after all his mother was American and the US fought with the Allies in the First World War.
Plus, the one chance that Hitler had to meet Churchill, in the Grand Hotel Continental, Munich, in spring of 1932, Hitler refused the meeting, even though he was right there too, and could have walked in to greet Churchill at any time.

So the chances that the Brits generally, or Churchill specifically, would chose some other strategic partner were slim to none... and Slim left town. ;-)

But this is a really big issue for people like Patrick Buchanan who argue the war was "unnecessary".

[henkster]

I think Churchill’s problem was that he was playing a losing hand. Britain was no longer the dominant coalition partner she had been in World War 1, when she was able to use her credit to finance the war effort of France, Russia and Italy. By this time, Britain is third-string in the grand coalition, and yes, her Empire is spinning off.

It’s what happens to all empires eventually. Apparently, even the American one.

[colorado tanker]

I agree. Britain was the junior member of the coalition and Churchill had to work in that reality. 1943 showed the world Russia would be a much bigger player in the post-War world, as it pushed the Germans back across the country.