World Leaders of WWII

[Saxondog]

World War II was not a decisive battle at all times, several battles turned the tide back and forth for the early years of the conflict, it could be noted that it only became a global conflict after Dec.7th 1941.

But no matter the date of the Theater which world leader had the greatest influence on the outcome of the war, either because of their leadership or their vision to understand the situation and direct national assets where they would have the most positive effect.

Hitler, Stalin, Churchill, Roosevelt, Mussolini, Tojo, Franco to name the Major players. For me it must be Hitler, for without his leadership the war may never have started and certainly he was the one power on the European side to prolong the conflict which must be viewed as almost amazing that by his shear influence the German Military fought so long and the Nation produced such powerful machines to fight with.

Saxondog

[Tankie]

The Spanish (Franco) were not involved in WWII except as neutrals due to the privations of the Civil War having already largely destroyed ther country.
Not sure on what grounds you highlight Hitler - Stalin was also responsible for the continued fighting of Russia and the death and suffering of millions of his own and other peoples just like Hitler. Once you mercillessly kill all your opponents its a bit more likely everyone else will follow your will.

For me it has to be Churchill - he led FREE people from desperation to victory.

You should mention De Gaulle, who led the Free French.

[Saxondog]

Their are links in my post about election in War time, perhaps I should of posted the world leader links here as well. I don't see where I Hightlighted Hitler other than his direct actions created the political situation which became a military situation very quickly after September, 1939.

Franco is included because the Germans helped him in his rise to power and Hitler felt he would join the AXIS powers and allow troops to march through Spain to invade Gibraltar. This would of effected the battle in Africa and the Italia efforts in that conflict.

But the main purpose here is not to agree or disagree with me, it is to bring into discussion all the players and their effect on the war.And my view on Stalin is similar to yours, but why were the Russians not included in the declaration of war against Germany as the Russians did invade Poland as well?

cheers Saxondog

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Thi ... #1919-1939" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mussolini" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tojo_Hideki" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_Franco" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Zedong" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiang_Kai-shek" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[grim_marmazet]

For me it must be Hitler, for without his leadership the war may never have started and certainly he was the one power on the European side to prolong the conflict which must be viewed as almost amazing that by his shear influence the German Military fought so long and the Nation produced such powerful machines to fight with.

I have to disagree with you Blake, if anything, Hitler's constant intervention in military matters, and his distinct mistrust of the Heer, if anything shortened the war.
Things like his ridiculous 'no retreat' order in Normandy, his obssession with controlling everything, his bias towards land forces and artillery all led to inefficient military actions.

Another thing that let him down was his constant belief that Goering and the Luftwaffe were going to achieve what was promised, hell his faliure to replace Goering contributed as well!

Up until the Battle of Britain, he was doing well, but that was because he let the generals control the battles. His failiure to launch Operation Sealion, and launching Barbarossa before finishing off the UK directly led to his downfall earlier than would've been.

I agree with Tankie that Churchill probably had the greatest impact on shortening the war. His refusal to surrender, and his constant pressure on Roosevelt to join the war helped to spurn on the destruction of the Reich.

Roosevelt wanted to join the war, but was more concerned with public anti-war sentiment. It's little mentioned that even after Pearl Harbour, he didn't declare war on Germany, only Japan. It took Hitler declaring war on the USA to involve America in the European war. Even when Roosevelt was involved in the ETO, his primary concerns were stopping Stalin gaining control of Europe, and to breaking up the British Empire.

De Gaulle, though he posistioned himeself as 'saving France', he was a glory hunter, who usurped power from the actual French government.

Cheers,
Rik

[Saxondog]

Excellent, I have been trying for three months to engage members in open discussions about these events. I really like History,and am a bookworm since middle school. Very literally have well over 100 books on Military History. But I am never sure what may be interesting to me is boring to others.

The comment about Goering's influence was a direct cause of failure for Germany, his stupid policies effected every battle.Had he been replaced with Adolf Galland things might have gone differently, certainly their would have been an Naval Air Arm as Galland saw giving the Navy air power as releasing him from being responsible for Naval air cover. Where Goering's only thought was power and retaining it at all cost.

Well we have a lively discussion going and that is great, Tankie would you consider adding your point of view concerning Goering?

cheers Saxondog

[grim_marmazet]

Excellent, I have been trying for three months to engage members in open discussions about these events. I really like History,and am a bookworm since middle school. Very literally have well over 100 books on Military History. But I am never sure what may be interesting to me is boring to others.

I'm currently studying a History degree, with a focus on 20th century history, to be followed by a Masters in 20th Century Conflict Archaeology, so you could say i'm interested, lol. My main focus is on equipment and tactics of the battles in Western Europe, but I like to debate the politics, especially the 'what if's'.

Goering was an idiot, power-hungry, and with no concept for the strategic use of air forces. You are right Blake that Galland would've probably had a Naval Air Arm, but without Germany developing proper carriers, it would've proved fruitless. The Luftwaffe was dead the moment it stopped bombing RAF airfields.
Contrary to popular belief, the RAF had replaced most of its lost aircraft, but was short on trained pilots. The damage caused to RAF bases was over-stated, but the loss of pilots would've lead to the downfall of the RAF and eventually Fallschirmjagers descending on the south coast of Britain.

German needed to either finish off the UK or sue for peace (with Churchill in power, that would've never had happened). If they had done this, and not declared ward on the US, they would've been able to throw the full force of their military against the Soviets. Some careful military planning, and a rush to Moscow, could possibly have secured the western USSR, and the oil fields in the Caucuses.

Cheers,
Rik

[Saxondog]

I agree Rik, Goering was an idiot, the fact that the Italian campaign against Greece caused the delay of Barbarossa by 6 weeks.All these issues effectively caused the defeat of Germany. But to back up the battle of Britain was lost the minute the focus shifted to bombing civilian centers and not air bases.

Churchill would never agree to a negotiated peace unless German troops were marching up Whitehall. I too enjoy the what if discussions and find they generally become very interesting. If Germany had landed 1000 troops with 100 tanks (PZIII AND IV) and secured landing fields for more aircraft and troops it is hard to see how the situation could be reversed.

I have tried to keep the discussion based on military events as caused by the political situation but I find it very difficult to separate the two subjects.

One other point, the first use of German Panzer forces in battle was in Spain supporting Franco.And the Germans planned on an occupied Gibraltar through Spain as payment for their support of Franco. It has always amazed me that the Germans respected the Spanish Neutrality? Very odd Perhaps Rik we could some how post some alternative History situations for discussion?

Look forward to my next post as the anniversary of an event that would prove the nail in the coffin of Italian efforts in Africa and Gibraltar's role as a important base is proven.

Saxondog

[Tankie]

I agree with all that is said above about Goering. The reality with the German party leaders who took active part in the war (as opposed to the German military leaders) is that their main interest was self serving and driven by ideology rather than tactics - not a good combination.

Its also interesting the Germans didn't have any truly heavy bombers for the battle of Britain (or thereafter)

I've read that Hitler believed his advisors who said Spain were incapable of helping Germany militarily having little effective industry and an impoverished war weary people and were therefore more help as a neutral.

Here's a what-if for you - what if Mussolini hadn't attacked France or Great Britain's territories but remained neutral for (say) another 2 years? - no Balkans conflict and Germany free to attack Russia earlier and press on with all its might, no weak underbelly and another source of 'neutral' supplies to Germany. I definitely think Mussolini was responsible for shortening the war by a few years.

Or what if Russia didn't know that Japan was going to 'attack south' and had therefore had to keep half a million troops in the east against an attack

[Saxondog]

Excellent points Tankie, the Russian concern about Japan is a valid point. Germany certainly tried to entice Japan to attack Russia. As for the soft under belly I agree their as well. They had a fast powerful navy but fought like cowards, the Italian navy had the power but without Carriers and the inter service disputes prevented tactical plans using all resources to dominate the Med.

Then they got a message actually coming up on Nov.10/11 and I will be posting an article on that date about the events of Nov.10/11 1940 and would welcome discussion about the impact and effect on future tactical plans by the AXIS Powers.

I would like to say thank you both for your feedback,observations and point of views. Proving we can have a discussion, and maintain a perspective of Historical events and their effect on the bigger picture.

I have built the German Navy in 1/350 scale, have always wondered what if? And certainly the last great political decision by Hitler shocked the Nazi command to the core, appointing Karl Donitz as the leader of Germany. No one saw that one coming.

I would really like to have a section or just a good thread to discuss the "What If" situations amongst our selves and see where it takes us. I for one find this type of discussion very interesting, but then as stated above I am a book worm and read history that would bore most people to sleep. But hey I enjoy reading and History is a great teacher. Thanks again guys for your input.
cheers Sax