Why didn't Churchill help Tito fight the Nazis?

[Deleted]

   Hey, here's an interesting history question for  our Winston Churchill fans to contemplate.

    Why didn't Winston Churchill help Tito and the Yugoslav Partisans in their heroic struggle to defeat the Nazis?  The Partisans were the only indigenous army in  Nazi-occupied Europe to defeat the Nazis, but they did it without air support or significant aid from the Allies.

    One million Yugoslavs died in the Yugoslavian war against Nazi Germany, Italy, and the Chetniks-- three times the number of Americans killed in WWII.

     If Churchill was so intent on defeating Hitler, why didn't he help Tito?

     Harry?

[Walter]

Pretty simple. Churchill backed the wrong horse, (the monarchists) in Yugoslavia.
If you want to piss off a Yugoslav, just bring up King Peter, who oversaw the quick German conquest of Yugoslavia, and then ran away to England to hide out, and then, after the war, the little pissant couldn't understand why nobody wanted him back to be king.

[oujour76]

Dec 27, 2017 19:19:12 GMT -5 Walter said:

Pretty simple. Churchill backed the wrong horse, (the monarchists) in Yugoslavia.
If you want to piss off a Yugoslav, just bring up King Peter, who oversaw the quick German conquest of Yugoslavia, and then ran away to England to hide out, and then, after the war, the little pissant couldn't understand why nobody wanted him back to be king.

You mean Churchill really did want to defeat Hitler!!?? Damn, who knew?

[Deleted]

Dec 27, 2017 19:25:21 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Dec 27, 2017 19:19:12 GMT -5 Walter said:

Pretty simple. Churchill backed the wrong horse, (the monarchists) in Yugoslavia.
If you want to piss off a Yugoslav, just bring up King Peter, who oversaw the quick German conquest of Yugoslavia, and then ran away to England to hide out, and then, after the war, the little pissant couldn't understand why nobody wanted him back to be king.

You mean Churchill really did want to defeat Hitler!!?? Damn, who knew?

Harry,

    Read Milovan Djilas's Wartime memoir some day.

    Tito repeatedly asked Churchill for help in the Partisan's brutal war against the Nazi war machine-- including the same type of relentless Luftwaffe bombing raids that the Poles and Soviets were subjected to in WWII.

Of course, the UK was busy defending their own empire, but what my history question is getting at is something far more insidious.

To wit, Churchill had a profound antipathy toward Marxism. Like most aristocrats--including Hitler's banker, Prescott Bush-- Churchill wanted the Nazis to destroy European communism.

If his main interest was defeating Hitler, why did he wait until June of 1944-- when the Red Army had defeated the Wehrmacht on the Eastern Front--to open the Second Front in France?

[Walter]

Dec 27, 2017 20:10:13 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Dec 27, 2017 19:25:21 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

You mean Churchill really did want to defeat Hitler!!?? Damn, who knew?

Harry,

    Read Milovan Djilas's Wartime memoir some day.

    Tito repeatedly asked Churchill for help in the Partisan's brutal war against the Nazi war machine-- including the same type of relentless Luftwaffe bombing raids that the Poles and Soviets were subjected to in WWII.

Of course, the UK was busy defending their own empire, but what my history question is getting at is something far more insidious.

To wit, Churchill had a profound antipathy toward Marxism. Like most aristocrats--including Hitler's banker, Prescott Bush-- Churchill wanted the Nazis to destroy European communism.

If his main interest was defeating Hitler, why did he wait until June of 1944-- when the Red Army had defeated the Wehrmacht on the Eastern Front--to open the Second Front in France?

Could be wrong, but I don't think he was in control of that decision.
That was a Roosevelt and Eisenhower call.

As for Tito, again, Churchill had the freaking king of Yugoslavia wandering around London at the time, talking up his return to the throne in Belgrade. As long as Tito was holding out and being a nuisance to the Germans, it was a no lose situation for Churchill, as was the Eastern Front in Russia.

[oujour76]

Dec 27, 2017 20:10:13 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

If his main interest was defeating Hitler, why did he wait until June of 1944-- when the Red Army had defeated the Wehrmacht on the Eastern Front--to open the Second Front in France?

Good to know that the Italian Campaign (1943) wasn't a Second Front. Too bad your father isn't alive, you could let him know as well.

[Deleted]

Dec 27, 2017 21:56:45 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Dec 27, 2017 20:10:13 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

If his main interest was defeating Hitler, why did he wait until June of 1944-- when the Red Army had defeated the Wehrmacht on the Eastern Front--to open the Second Front in France?

Good to know that the Italian Campaign (1943) wasn't a Second Front. Too bad your father isn't alive, you could let him know as well.

Key words in my sentence-- "in France."  Listen and learn.  Italy was a peripheral "front," but it was not the major Second Front that Stalin wanted to help his war efforts against the bulk of the Wehrmacht. 

How many Nazi Divisions were deployed in Italy?

Yes, my father fought for the duration of our U.S. involvement in WWII-- from North Africa to Germany. 

But there is ample evidence that Winston  Churchill hated and dreaded communism as much, if not more, than German fascism.  (The same was, certainly, true of Wall Street lawyers and bankers like Prescott Bush and Allen Dulles.)

How else do we explain his reluctance to more aggressively and promptly help the USSR and the Yugoslavian Partisans defeat Hitler?

He waited until the Nazis were virtually defeated to enter the fray in France.

Churchill dreaded a Soviet occupation of Western Europe in 1944.   He also wanted the U.S. to nuke the Soviet Union in 1945-- according to conversations with Milovan Djilas and others-- to prevent a Soviet occupation of the European continent.

[oujour76]

Dec 28, 2017 0:06:48 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Key words in my sentence-- "in France."  Listen and learn.  Italy was a peripheral "front," but it was not the major Second Front that Stalin wanted to help his war efforts against the bulk of the Wehrmacht.  "Peripheral" or not, it helped divert German troops from Russia and sped up the liberation of Europe. The U.S. also supplied the Russians with planes, vehicles and food. Without it, beating the Nazi's back would have taken them far longer.  Even your hero Stalin admitted that. Despite what Stalin "wanted" the U.S. and Britain didn't have the capability of conducting an amphibious invasion of France in 1942 or 1943. Not even close.
How many Nazi Divisions were deployed in Italy? On average, about 25, which meant about 400,000 Germans were no longer fighting the Russians. Not inconsequential, no matter what you may think. 

[daleko]

Dec 28, 2017 1:50:51 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Dec 28, 2017 0:06:48 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Key words in my sentence-- "in France."  Listen and learn.  Italy was a peripheral "front," but it was not the major Second Front that Stalin wanted to help his war efforts against the bulk of the Wehrmacht.  "Peripheral" or not, it helped divert German troops from Russia and sped up the liberation of Europe. The U.S. also supplied the Russians with planes, vehicles and food. Without it, beating the Nazi's back would have taken them far longer.  Even your hero Stalin admitted that. Despite what Stalin "wanted" the U.S. and Britain didn't have the capability of conducting an amphibious invasion of France in 1942 or 1943. Not even close.
How many Nazi Divisions were deployed in Italy? On average, about 25, which meant about 400,000 Germans were no longer fighting the Russians. Not inconsequential, no matter what you may think. 

Contrary to what Ambrose things the turning point of WW II was when America turned up its economic and mfg muscle to supply the non-Axis world to fight and then came into he war. That was the turning point.

[oujour76]

Dec 28, 2017 10:00:50 GMT -5 daleko said:

Dec 28, 2017 1:50:51 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Contrary to what Ambrose things the turning point of WW II was when America turned up its economic and mfg muscle to supply the non-Axis world to fight and then came into he war. That was the turning point.

No doubt that was the turning point. Also no doubt that the Russians lost more people than anyone else. But that isn't what his narrative is all about. It's about being contrary, no matter what the subject. If the Allies had not invaded Italy, William would claim they deliberately didn't want to divert German divisions from Russia...because Churchill hated Communists and the EOC.

[Deleted]

Dec 28, 2017 11:58:21 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Dec 28, 2017 10:00:50 GMT -5 daleko said:

Contrary to what Ambrose things the turning point of WW II was when America turned up its economic and mfg muscle to supply the non-Axis world to fight and then came into he war. That was the turning point.

No doubt that was the turning point. Also no doubt that the Russians lost more people than anyone else. But that isn't what his narrative is all about. It's about being contrary, no matter what the subject. If the Allies had not invaded Italy, William would claim they deliberately didn't want to divert German divisions from Russia...because Churchill hated Communists and the EOC.

Actually, you two are wrong on several accounts.

F o r example, Werth and others on the scene, noted that the military equipment deployed by the Red Army at Stalingrad--the decisive battle of WWII-- was Soviet made-- katyusha rockets and T-34 Soviet tanks.

Certainly, FDR and the US played an important role in helping Stalin defeat Hitler, but Stalin also succeeded in relocating Russian industries to the Urals in time to, ultimately, save the USSR from the Wehrmacht.

My main point, however, is that we need to study the mythology of Winston Churchill more carefully.

Churchill has long been lionized by western plutocrats as the great anti-Nazi hero of WWII.  But, in truth, he was more than happy to watch Hitler destroy the communists in Russia and Yugoslavia.

IMO, Churchill was a British monarchist and aristocratic imperialist at heart.  He hated and feared working class prerogatives, and the end of British colonialism.

As for Stalin and the Bolshevik, they were unspeakably evil.

My political heroes of WWII are FDR, Henry Wallace, and Milovan Djilas.

[oujour76]

Dec 28, 2017 14:51:36 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Actually, you two are wrong on several accounts.

F o r example, Werth and others on the scene, noted that the military equipment deployed by the Red Army at Stalingrad--the decisive battle of WWII-- was Soviet made-- katyusha rockets and T-34 Soviet tanks. Not talking solely about Stalingrad. In WW2, the U.S. provided the Russians with about 80,000 jeeps and 350,000 1 1/2 and 2 /12 ton trucks. Armies don't move without that kind of equipment. And that doesn't touch what was provided in tanks, planes and food.

My main point, however, is that we need to study the mythology of Winston Churchill more carefully.  Churchill has long been lionized by western plutocrats as the great anti-Nazi hero of WWII.  Not lionizing him, but unlike you not demonizing him, either.

[Deleted]

Dec 28, 2017 15:17:10 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Dec 28, 2017 14:51:36 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Actually, you two are wrong on several accounts.

F o r example, Werth and others on the scene, noted that the military equipment deployed by the Red Army at Stalingrad--the decisive battle of WWII-- was Soviet made-- katyusha rockets and T-34 Soviet tanks. Not talking solely about Stalingrad. In WW2, the U.S. provided the Russians with about 80,000 jeeps and 350,000 1 1/2 and 2 /12 ton trucks. Armies don't move without that kind of equipment. And that doesn't touch what was provided in tanks, planes and food.

My main point, however, is that we need to study the mythology of Winston Churchill more carefully.  Churchill has long been lionized by western plutocrats as the great anti-Nazi hero of WWII.  Not lionizing him, but unlike you not demonizing him, either.

Alexander Werth specifically mentioned the relative scarcity of American made Jeeps and other vehicles at Stalingrad.

And the Red Army fought with T34 Soviet tanks, not American Sherman tanks.

As for Churchill, I have always admired the man--except for his disparaging attitude toward the working class, and toward colonials and those who were not Anglo- Saxons.

Churchill and Henry Wallace once had a serious argument  about Churchill's ethnocentrism.

[oujour76]

Dec 28, 2017 17:16:19 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Dec 28, 2017 15:17:10 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Alexander Werth specifically mentioned the relative scarcity of American made Jeeps and other vehicles at Stalingrad. ::Sigh:: As already noted, not referring strictly to Stalingrad.

And the Red Army fought with T34 Soviet tanks, not American Sherman tanks. Primarily, yes but the U.S. provided about 2,000 Sherman Tanks to the Russians during the war. My guess is the Russians actually used them.

As for Churchill, I have always admired the man--except for his disparaging attitude toward the working class, and toward colonials and those who were not Anglo- Saxons. I'm all for looking at the totality of someone's life, but you're too one sided for my taste. You call Gandhi one of the greatest men who ever lived and totally ignore his racist past along with sleeping in the nude with 12-year old girls.

[Walter]

Dec 28, 2017 15:17:10 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Dec 28, 2017 14:51:36 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Actually, you two are wrong on several accounts.

F o r example, Werth and others on the scene, noted that the military equipment deployed by the Red Army at Stalingrad--the decisive battle of WWII-- was Soviet made-- katyusha rockets and T-34 Soviet tanks. Not talking solely about Stalingrad. In WW2, the U.S. provided the Russians with about 80,000 jeeps and 350,000 1 1/2 and 2 /12 ton trucks. Armies don't move without that kind of equipment. And that doesn't touch what was provided in tanks, planes and food.

My main point, however, is that we need to study the mythology of Winston Churchill more carefully.  Churchill has long been lionized by western plutocrats as the great anti-Nazi hero of WWII.  Not lionizing him, but unlike you not demonizing him, either.

I'm going to lionize him. I was watching a program last night about Prohibition and all the ways it was gotten around by various methods of smuggling. One of them was a fleet of rum-runners from The Bahamas, an English colony. The US complained to England, but Churchill refused to intervene, saying that prohibition was, "an affront to the whole history of mankind."

My hero!