A stream about the British army on the western front in WW2.


Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
United Kingdom

Here is a stream about the British army on the western front in WW2. With slight talk of the British army in North Africa and Burma. I am wondering if other members agree with the views of the speakers in the stream. As I don't know very much about the British army in WW2.

One thing which interested me from the stream was how much politics played in the British army in WW2, where generals were being replaced or put in overall command for political reason or to cover the politicians namely Churchill during the war. Which we also saw in Afghanistan and Iraq with US forces. All in all the British military seems to have not be prepared for WW2, so Britain in my view should never have fought in the war at all, it was a total mistake. I am not a fan of Churchill myself, I view him as totally out of his depth and a media creation, his whit is very good and his writing, his wisdom and actual great strategy in WW1, WW2, Cold war not so much. A vastly overrated figure.

In terms of the British generals, I think Monty was good strategically, built up his forces to the point he knew he couldn't lose and was very good at logistics and good at knowing his men. So I don't agree with the streamers he was a bad general or even overrated. I do agree O'conner was very good operationally, as was William Slim. But they were less capable strategically. Ideally you would have wanted to have both types within the general staff, one working on the strategy and logistics, and the other two on the operational implementation. To create an overall great strategy which could be logistically supported and operationally have the greatest effect. However the politics could have put an end to that. I think singling out one general or politicians to blame or give credit is wrong for anything in WW2. The theater's were so vast, the numbers of men and material involved was so great, no one man or group of men could have more than a small effect. So you needed entire general staff, politicians and economic leaders all on the same page working towards the same goal. Which in my view doesn't seem to have happened in WW2, at any point for Britain. In WW1 it seems to have happened, in the Napoleonic wars, in the 7 years war and War of the Spanish Succession it happened. But when Britain has failed in war it hasn't happened, in the American war of Independence, in Boer war, in the Crimea war and WW2, even the cold war. The disunity of the overall ruling class, meant the British performed below par.
Top Bottom