Churchill all hes cracked up to be?

Discussions on all aspects of the The United Kingdom & its Empire and Commonwealth during the Inter-War era and Second World War. Hosted by Andy H
User avatar
R-Bob The Great!
Member
Posts: 549
Joined: 24 Jan 2003, 07:13
Location: Canada

Churchill all hes cracked up to be?

#1

Post by R-Bob The Great! » 18 Jan 2004, 22:39

I was wonderng why Winbston Churchill was all he was cracked up to be because as a strategist he never fared that well, sponsoring the Gallipoli campaign in the First World War, allowed the war in Africa to drag on for 2 years because of the premature attack he forced on Wavell then sacked him for inevitably failing. Then the Greek campaign and of course the "soft underbelly" slugging match that tied down maximum Allied forces and minimum Axis forces. And wanting to Anthrax bomb all major German cities were it not for American generals who intervened. Thats just off the top of my head. Does anyone know any more?

User avatar
Eden Zhang
Member
Posts: 1196
Joined: 28 Dec 2003, 10:54
Location: XXX

#2

Post by Eden Zhang » 19 Jan 2004, 03:46

I don't know any more incidents of Churchill making bad orders. But it is a well known fact he does not like Australians as he sees them as being tainted due to Australia's penal-colony beginnings.

Still, Churchill was able to rally his people and give them hope during their darkest hour, prolonging British resistance. I think this makes up for the fact he slept till noon and smoked Opium in high school :)


User avatar
R-Bob The Great!
Member
Posts: 549
Joined: 24 Jan 2003, 07:13
Location: Canada

#3

Post by R-Bob The Great! » 19 Jan 2004, 04:03

True. I think maybe he should have, like Hitler(except fot the invasion of France), kept out of the matters of generals.

User avatar
Andy H
Forum Staff
Posts: 15326
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:51
Location: UK and USA

#4

Post by Andy H » 19 Jan 2004, 13:16

True. I think maybe he should have, like Hitler(except fot the invasion of France), kept out of the matters of generals.

What WW2 politician was able to do that, given that war is the natural extension of failed politics& diplomacy

Andy H

User avatar
R-Bob The Great!
Member
Posts: 549
Joined: 24 Jan 2003, 07:13
Location: Canada

#5

Post by R-Bob The Great! » 22 Jan 2004, 07:49

Perhaps not micromanaging to such a large extent. Maybe on teh same level as Roosevelt.

varjag
Member
Posts: 4431
Joined: 01 May 2002, 02:44
Location: Australia

#6

Post by varjag » 22 Jan 2004, 14:06

His enduring quality was 'the gift of the gab' - which he shared with Hitler. Hitler lost - Churchill won, so his words will be remembered - while Hitlers will be forgotten. Apart from that, I see Churchill as little more than another British upper-class Dandy - a true Champagne Charlie....

User avatar
Lord Gort
Member
Posts: 2014
Joined: 07 Apr 2002, 15:44
Location: United Kingdom: The Land of Hope and Glory

#7

Post by Lord Gort » 22 Jan 2004, 18:02

Sir Winston Chruchill was a prolific worker. It was his timetable of work that confused many. While is true that he had afternoon naps etc, it is also true that he worked almost till dawn everyday. Indeed the real work of the day was left till midnight when secretaries would come into his study of dictation for near 4-5 hrs.


As a strategist he was competent. Everyone remembers Galipoli for being a failure, they forget how close it was to success. The Battleships, (which were prized above everything despite being scrapped the follwoing year) pulled back when there were no mroe mines left. It is quite simple to say that had 'luck' been on the Allies side they could have knocked Turkey out of the war.


Add to that that Churchill never ever forgot Gallipoli and it was his huge interest and concentration on the Normandy landings, by investigating every detail that helped the troops when they landed with equipment they might not have had.



In reference to the Wavell comment, the simple fact of the matter is that in 1940 to 1941 Britain stood almost alone bar the brave band of Commonwelath and Empire nations who rallied round. Neither the Soviet Union nor the United States were about to ride to our rescue. And no one thought that there was a possibility of escaping from the military nightmare which was Britians strategic situtation. For this reason political intervention in events was key, and although it lead to failures it also lead to succeses.



You mention the Greek Campaign. But imagine it. Greece is attacked, despite the constant British propaganda about "any nation that fights nazism will have our aid" and the British dont turn up!

It would have been political suicide.

The campaign in Greece is not so easy. Although we know in retrospect that halting the Libyan campign and sending troops to Greece led to Rommel being able to arrive in Africa with 2 division things were differemt in the views of the British.

Firstly there was at alst the opportunity of creating a southern front in the balkans against the Germans.


We know now that this is folly but when most of the Generals of the day rememebred the first world war Salonika campign, which in 1918 did much to make the German sign the armistice, perceptions were obviously different.

Add to this what seem to be a longer and longer string of British victories.

Ethiopia is conquered, the Italians turned out of Eyqpt and O'Connor leading a hell for leather offensive in Libya. The Itlain Navy ahs just had a major defeat off cape Matapan. etc etc, these are all factors.

Churchill wanted to aid the Greeks because he saw Britian had the moral obligation, and ha d an opportunity. Wavell, and the Chief of the Imperial General Staff concurred.


Roy Jenkins finishes his excellent Biography on Churchill(brilliant well worth reading) by saying.....


"I now put Churchill, with all his idiosyncrasies, his indulgences, his occasional childishness, but also his genius, his tenacity and his persistent ability, right or wrong, succesul or unsuccesful, to be larger than life, as the greatest human being ever to occupy 10 Downing Street."


Or even better, what President Kennedy's said when Churchill was made an honorary citizen of the Unietd States (the first since Lafayette!)..............

Whenever and wherever tyranny threatened, he has always championed liberty.

Facing firmly toward the future, he has never forgotten the past.

Serving six monarchs of his native Great Britain, he has served all men's freedom and dignity.

In the dark days and darker nights when Britain stood alone -- and most men save Englishmen despaired of England's life -- he mobilized the English language and sent it into battle. The incandescent quality of his words illuminated the courage of his countrymen.

Given unlimited powers by his citizens, he was ever vigilant to protect their rights.

Indifferent himself to danger, he wept over the sorrows of others.

A child of the House of Commons, he became in time its father.

Accustomed to the hardships of battle, he has no distaste for pleasure.

Now his stately Ship of Life, having weathered the severest storms of a troubled century, is anchored in tranquil waters, proof that courage and faith and the zest for freedom are truly indestructible. The record of his triumphant passage will inspire free hearts for all time.

By adding his name to our rolls, we mean to honor him -- but his acceptance honors us far more. For no statement or proclamation can enrich his name -- the name Sir Winston Churchill is already legend.

Friendly Regards,

User avatar
Gyenes
Member
Posts: 238
Joined: 11 Nov 2003, 06:11
Location: United States of America

#8

Post by Gyenes » 22 Jan 2004, 22:08

Just to chime in on Churchills "gift of gab".

"... the British parliment contains a full manual of expressions whose use is permissible or not in the various parliments of the British commonwealth. To begin with "liar" is barred; but it may be paraphrased in such fasions as "trifler with the truth," or Churchill's "guilty of terminological inexactitude." (There are 125 ways, it is claimed, to call a man a liar without using the word itself.) Other expressions dissallowed include "wicked," "mongrel," and just plain "fool." Churchill at one time or another used "boneless wonder," "countrified businessman," and "modest man with plenty to be modest about."

The whole point of that was to show the kind of aura around that was Winston. Churchill did have his drawbacks, but it was his enormous charisma, in my opinion, that left many with such a lasting image of this unshakeable rock that lead Britain throught the darkness called world war 2.

User avatar
adrian
Member
Posts: 39
Joined: 11 May 2002, 04:46
Location: Boree Creek, Australia

#9

Post by adrian » 22 Jan 2004, 22:39

For all his faults, I still regard him as the greatestest Englishman of them all. As has been stated he has galvanized a nation in its darkest hour with his words and his strength of character.

I shudder to think what may have happened had Lord Halifax or Chamberlain been PM in those dark days.

adrian

User avatar
PolAntek
Member
Posts: 534
Joined: 23 Oct 2002, 05:41
Location: The Beautiful West Coast of Canada

#10

Post by PolAntek » 24 Jan 2004, 06:47

The Polish perspective on Churchill is not quite so glowing. After trumpeting all of the lofty ideals of the Atlantic Charter – for example:

… to see no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned;

… respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live; and they wish to see sovereign rights and self government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them

Churchill’s about face on these principle’s and abandonment of one of England’s staunchest allies (and the fourth largest contributor to the Allied war effort after the Soviet Union, the U.S. and Great Britain) into the murderous grasp of Stalin is reprehensible. Stalin gratefully accepted the gift so he could continue his cleansing program not quite finished after Katyn. When WW2 finally ended in 1945, in Poland the suffering, arrests, torture and murders continued at a brisk pace.

To revisit Kennedy’s words:

“Whenever and wherever tyranny threatened, he has always championed liberty.”

"...he has served all men's freedom and dignity."

Well – depends on whom you ask.

User avatar
Andy H
Forum Staff
Posts: 15326
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:51
Location: UK and USA

#11

Post by Andy H » 24 Jan 2004, 13:57

Churchill’s about face on these principle’s and abandonment of one of England’s staunchest allies (and the fourth largest contributor to the Allied war effort after the Soviet Union, the U.S. and Great Britain) into the murderous grasp of Stalin is reprehensible. Stalin gratefully accepted the gift so he could continue his cleansing program not quite finished after Katyn. When WW2 finally ended in 1945, in Poland the suffering, arrests, torture and murders continued at a brisk pace.
What about the other countries that signed upto the Atlantic charter, I don't see then riding up on a white charger to save Poland. We all have ideals, some are attainable other's, no matter how hard we would like to achieve them, remain out of reach.

Maybe we should have stayed quite when Germany invaded Poland and quietly gone about ruling the empire. Churchill was no saint but neither was he the devil.

Andy H

User avatar
PolAntek
Member
Posts: 534
Joined: 23 Oct 2002, 05:41
Location: The Beautiful West Coast of Canada

#12

Post by PolAntek » 24 Jan 2004, 21:04

Andy,

The Poles were in a unique and unenviable position. First being invaded by and then forcibly having to cozy up the Soviets, their newly joined ‘ally’. The ally who had not only slaughtered 12,000 + of their leading military personnel, but deported over a million Poles to the Soviet wastelands to perish. And make no mistake – Churchill was no fool to seriously consider the Soviet BS that the Germans did the killing – both he and Roosevelt had the information to suspect, if not know, full well who was behind this war crime.

“What about the other countries that signed up to the Atlantic charter, I don't see them riding up on a white charger to save Poland”

Churchill (and Roosevelt) were in a unique position over the other signatories as one of the “Big Three”. They wielded the real power and influence in the decision making.

“We all have ideals, some are attainable other's, no matter how hard we would like to achieve them, remain out of reach.”

It helps to read some of the wonderful assurances Churchill gave the Poles about the certainty of a free homeland upon the final victory. He could have done more, especially after having uttered those great and flowery speeches as only Churchill could. If he was in his right mind (and I believe he was), he must have agonized over the obvious hypocrisy he was engaging in. Instead, the record is clear that Churchill and the bumbling and naive FDR, were decisively outwitted and outmaneuvered by Stalin. Preoccupied with other concerns they simply abandoned the Poles to their fate.

“Maybe we should have stayed quite when Germany invaded Poland…”

Hmmm…isn’t that exactly what happened? The Poles fought alone without the aid of their allies (in violation of their treaty obligations) for 35 days against two invaders until they were crushed.

I do not condemn Churchill as an evil man. Undoubtedly he was the right man for England at that time. He can and should be credited with very much good. However, neither was he the glorious saint that so many make him out to be. The Polish perspective has a valid objectivity. Prone to mood swings and other personality quirks – Churchill’s fallibility were amply demonstrated in his terrible mishandling of the Polish matter. Understandably, he himself was also in a difficult position as he, once again, was beginning to see Stalin for who he was – and evil and cunning despot – yet one who had to remain on his side. But to hand over Poland in the callous manner that he did cannot be excused. His blatant bullying of the Poles and disregard for them as a sovereign state in the closing months of the war remains an indelible stain on his record.

Best regards,

Antoni

varjag
Member
Posts: 4431
Joined: 01 May 2002, 02:44
Location: Australia

#13

Post by varjag » 25 Jan 2004, 12:29

I quite share PolAntek's views. Did not Churchill in Parliament after V-E Day drop the words; 'we have NOW FULFILLED our obligations to Poland'? Reffering, of course to Britains 1939 'guarantee' to that suffering country. What a joke! What a liar! But then again - he WAS a politician, and most of them have been known to use the truth sparingly.

viriato
Member
Posts: 717
Joined: 21 Apr 2002, 14:23
Location: Porto,Portugal

#14

Post by viriato » 25 Jan 2004, 16:03

PolAntek you have made quite interesting statements in your last post. However with this I cannot agree:
...the record is clear that Churchill and the bumbling and naive FDR, were decisively outwitted and outmaneuvered by Stalin.
Naive Roosevelt??? No he had a purpose whatever wicked one might find it and his "philostalinism" was a very important part of his war aims, so to speak. Was he blind to what was happening in the USSR? No he had full knowledge of it but still he pretended he didn't. His first interest was the destruction of Germany (whatever regime Germany might have had including the national-socialist one) and the USSR was his main weapon to achieve that aim.

User avatar
Lord Gort
Member
Posts: 2014
Joined: 07 Apr 2002, 15:44
Location: United Kingdom: The Land of Hope and Glory

#15

Post by Lord Gort » 25 Jan 2004, 17:25

Churchill fought ferociously for Poland. However Roosevelt, in his last dying days, was unfortunatly susceptible in his weakened state to the fawn like panderings of Stalin, who said "look, were the real superpowers here, lets discuss the future of the world like reasonable men".

Roosevelts announcement at Yalta that he intended to have all US troops out of Europe within a matter of years was music to Stalin's ears and only wekaned Churchill who was not supported by Roosevelt. Eventually Vhurchill just managed to get the concession of 'free and fair' elections. Unfortunatly these never occurred, Churchill was out of office and the US unwilling to face up to the Soviet Union over the issue.

Churchill himself was distraught over whatr had happened.


He said to his closest advisors...."Cromwell was a great man, but obssessed with the power of Spain he failed to observe the rise of France.....will they say the same of me?".




I think the tragedy of Churchill's ;ife is that despite all of what he accomplished he always compared himself to all that he hadnt.

regards,

Post Reply

Return to “The United Kingdom & its Empire and Commonwealth 1919-45”