In 1940 Churchill would not allow Halifax to negotiate peace with Nazis. Peace with UK would have meant Germany would not have been at war with US either (no need). No Bombing, no invasion front, full European resources against USSR and no lend lease to USSR. USSR likely lose.
Bhaskar Sunkara — whoever that is — claims that “studying some military history” would reveal Churchill wasn’t decisive in victory. Funny, no ACTUAL historians have ever made that claim. But Mr Sunkara (more likely to be just a chip-on-shoulder foreign nationalist) does!https://twitter.com/sunraysunray/status/1301868987345702912 …
-
-
-
Just to give one example of what that would mean - by August 1944, there were 10,704 Flak 18, 36 and 37 guns (the 88mm Flak), plus 10.5cm and 12.8cm guns in service defending the Reich from allied bombing - almost all of which could have been deployed in the anti tank role.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Yes, I apologize, I didn’t realize that defending the British Empire’s worst leader was an important part of being of. being an American republican. Would you rather Churchill and Montgomery in overall command?
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Raheem. He pretty much was. You can't take him out and say things would have worked out the same... Would we have even gone to war?If we did would we then have sued for peace after the fall of France? Also Churchill was crucial in pushing for rearmament in the 1930's.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.