The Yugoslavians did very well, but their liberation of their country, as noble and brave as it was, has to be placed in context of the wider situation. With Russians rapidly approaching from the east, and US, and other allied forces, threatening to come around the Aegean Sea from Italy the German army was threaten with being trapped against the sea. As brave and effective as the Yugoslavian fighters were their efforts were effective because the strategic situation demanded the Germans flee the area.

Of the many case studies in WW2 two that I find fascinating are the story of the US Merchant Marine and the 8th Air Force.

The stout spines of the British leadership were steeled by knowing that the US would get supplies to them. The US was the lifeline for England. The effect has been seen British humor and computer terminology. One British wag noted that 'he liked SPAM but wished the Americans hadn't sent to much of it'. By the end of the war England had seen more than its fair share of SPAM. Thus the Monty Python sketch with the chanting Vikings, by way of which we got the popular term for repetitious and annoying e-mail and forum postings.

England lived or died by our ability to get supplies to them. The nation couldn't feed itself and it has few mineral and no petroleum resources. The job of keeping England in food and oil fell to the Merchant Marine. Interesting fact: The merchant marine had more casualties by percentage than any other branch.

http://www.usmm.org/casualty.html

The Marines were tough but they were on land and armed to the teeth. The Mariners were in unarmored, largely unarmed, ships that chugged along at about 11mph. If you had to abandon ship and didn't make it into a lifeboat you were done for. Typical convoy orders were that no ship was to stop to rescue survivors.

Ammunition ships tended to explode leaving nothing but smoke and a slick. Tankers caught fire and surrounded themselves with rings of burning fuel. The transports were cheaply built and poorly compartmentalized so hulls cracked, broke up and sank rapidly.

Took a special sort of bravery to sign up time after time to go out on a transport knowing they were gunning for you and there wasn't much you could do about it. A lot of what what we learned about survival at sea came from Merchant Marine crews.

It has to be noted that while they took more casualties as a percentage than any other branch the Merchant Mariners were considered civilians and looked down upon by most people. The navy got the credit. They just earned a paycheck. They also, until recently, got no service benefits. Things were not all goodness and light for everyone. Injustice knows no special time.


Flight crews in the 8th Airforce were also a special case. One historian claims, if I have it right, that your chances as a pilot in a Japanese kamikaze squadron were better than as a flight crewman in the 8th. The Brits gave up on daylight bombing. We regularly flew 2000 bomber missions and losses of about 5% were common. Five percent doesn't sound bad, until you figure that you have to do it again every few days for the duration of the war. The only alternative was getting maimed, or dead.

Crews despaired, considered themselves dead, cracked, went nuts ... and then most of them climbed back into their patched bombers and went out on another mission knowing full well that another five percent wouldn't make it back. That's a special type of brave.

I'm not sure how this ties into survival other than to remind us that no matter how bad it gets there have been people who had it worse, and made it through.

Am_Fear_Liath_Mor - 'mass murder in same vein as Adolf Hitler' is a bit strong?

I think it is a mischaracterization but the difference might be seen as a difference in degree instead of kind. Rising to national leadership demands a certain ability to bet the future of your nation, the lives and well being of your citizens, the shape of the world, on a roll of the dice and a bet based on inadequate information.

Hitler, by many accounts, was surprised that Britain declared war when he invaded Poland. But even now there are differing opinions about exactly how surprised he was and what his original plan was.

History is like that.

History is often revisited by careful historians and researchers. Yes, there are the cranks and nit-pickers who tend to weave in supernatural levels of foreknowledge and conspiracy into every act. But careful research can shift our understanding of events and do it in a repeatable and well documented way.

The book "Dresden" by Fredrick Taylor was written using the original German accounts and documentation that had been locked away behind the iron curtain and in Russian archives. The result is that he shows how the Soviet Union greatly exaggerated the number of casualties. It also revisits the decision to bomb the city. But most of the book is a series of terrifying first-person accounts of the fires and devastation that shows that there was no need to exaggerate the horror.

http://www.amazon.com/Dresden-Tuesday-February-13-1945/dp/0060006765

Another good book is "The Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors" by James D. Hornfischer. It is the little known story of a battle group of small 'jeep' carriers and a screen of light escorts that runs up against a battle group of Japanese capital ships, including the largest battleship ever built. Outnumbered and massively outgunned the tiny escorts turn toward the enemy fleet and charge as the carriers turn the other way, make smoke, and run away as fast as a slow ship can.

http://www.amazon.com/Last-Stand-Tin-Sailors-Extraordinary/dp/0553381482

I suggest this book as an interesting read on the causes of WWII.
http://www.amazon.com/Origins-Second-World-War/dp/0684829479

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._D._Morel

Pretty strong words from a Pacifist and Quaker.

Churchill used to be the Parliamentary Candidate for the constituency where I live, he was so popular at the time, that during the 1922 Election, when all the drunks fell out of the pubs in the town they all went of to the polling stations and voted for a Pacifist and a Prohibitionist.

Directly after the war, Prime Minister Churchill's government was voted out in the 1945 Election (preferring instead the establishment of a National Health Service etc rather than the same inequities of the previous 20s and 30s Churchill was promising) . No one in the UK had even voted him in as Prime Minister unlike of course as the Germans had done with Adolf Hitler as Chancellor of Germany in 1933.

PMs are not elected, only MPs who later exchange letters. It's the same as the Speaker of the House in the US.

The Morel quote is from a political opponent: such words are quite common in such situations.

You neglect to mention that after being voted out, Churchill was voted back in after a period of "is the grass greener on the other side of the fence?"

I have read concerns others wrote in the pre-WW1 period about an up-and-coming Churchill, one being "He will write his name big on our future. Let us take care he does not write it in blood.". He had too little fear of military action - in spite of seeing combat - and deeply believed in the virtues of Empire. Something like Teddy Roosevelt in a way.

It's possible that in an alternate universe Churchill might have been responsible for millions of deaths in the name of Empire. In this universe, however, he chose the opposite path from Hitler.

This is reasonably balanced article on the issue of Churchill's strength's and weakness.