Comments by "James the Other One" (@jamestheotherone742) on "Churchill Does it AGAIN | The REAL Operation Crusader 1941-42 BATTLESTORM Part 1" video.

  1. Churchill is considering the global geo-strategic picture, not only of the immediate but also what the post-war political environment is going to look like. Where as the generals are only concerned with fighting their battles (and looking good/brilliant to history). That is why he has to constantly badger and goad them into action.
    9
  2. Wasn't referring to him specifically. By nature of the job every general will sit on his army until he has (what he thinks) is as close to 100% chance of success as he can, if nothing else than to preserve his soldiers. An "even" or "fair" fight is the sign of a poor general (or a wargamer ;), but events (and politics) forces the issue.
    2
  3. That hinged on the axis winning the air and sea battle of the Med. Which they didn't. Which is really the reason the Afrika Korps failed. If Rommel had gotten all the men and material that went to the bottom of the Med, he could have taken Tobruk. With Tobruk, he could have taken Cairo.
    2
  4. Churchill needed to preserve the empire, as its resources and the Suez were keeping them alive. D-Day, hell even Italy wasn't going to happen until the US was even in the war.
    1
  5. WTF?
    1
  6. Exactly.
    1
  7. Which might have left three German divisions, all the resources that got wasted in N. Africa (not to mention Rommel), mebe even a bunch of Italian troops free for Barbarossa. The take the Caucuses and then Egypt from the East instead of the West a year later.
    1
  8. Maybe you should read my entire post and hold your bias?
    1
  9. Those 3 divisions aren't as important as the logistical resources they used up over 3 years.
    1
  10. The Afrika Corps were undersupplied because their supply lines were interdicted by the RN & RAF and because the majority of resources were going towards Barbarossa. What did get allocated to N. Africa was not insignificant. Remember this wasn't just a corp then army group amongst many, but it had all of the sundries of an entire theater, an air force, logistical and administrative overhead, etc. Plus you have all of the Italian men and material that were lost because they didn't have any adult supervision either... I'm not sure what the rest of your post means. The British defeated the Afrika Korp as fast as it could (faster than they should have according to TIK ;P). By '43 the writing was on the wall (in hindsight, not at the time). The Axis on the defensive in both the Med and Eastern Front, pretty much because Hitler squandered his initial advantage spreading his forces and resources across too many campaigns (BoB, N. Africa, Russia, and assorted occupations), and the US and USSR were bringing their industrial and manpower advantage to bear. Had Hitler told Mussolini "Tough luck on that Africa thing." and contented himself with shutting down the Suez Canal and only contesting sea/air control of the Med itself, its very likely that the history of later half of WWII would be much different. And involve much more radiation...
    1
  11. We are playing "what if" here. Did you read my entire reply or just the first paragraph? The Germans had very little impact on the timing of the Allied invasion of W. Europe. That depended upon the US's entry into the war and how fast they could build up the necessary forces. The Brits did not have the resources or capacity to do it alone, even without the N. African campaign. However if the Germans had managed to take the Caucuses and Moscow when they still had the tactical advantage, the Soviets would have been in a much worse situation and Germany might have been in a much better position to resist in the West. But, yes, the story always ends with Berlin being destroyed, be it by nukes or the hard way with bombs and Red Army tanks.
    1
  12. Apparently finding generals who can win in a given situation IS how you win wars. I think a lot of you (TIK included) are judging Churchill based entirely upon hindsight and your contemporary political sensibilities...
    1
  13. Its easy for us, 70 yrs hence, to point out "well, you should have done this or that", and easy to pick out voices from that era who support that contention. But you have to consider the context of the moment and how decisions were made with imperfect information and competing/conflicting goals. Or even simply personalities. Churchill was an antagonistic controversial figure, I leave it to your imagination to see how opinion of him is coloured by today's politics.
    1
  14. Or vice versa. The Germans won many short term tactical victories but they were doomed at the strategic long term level.
    1
  15. Likewise I am indifferent. I don't make a judgement. Churchill, like every historical figure, like every person every day, had to make decisions. Sometimes they were right, sometimes they were wrong but they made the decision and that shaped the flow of events. Mostly I'm just being the contrarian since it seems in vogue to pick on ol' Winston. ;)
    1
  16. Finally!
    1