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

#16

Post by viriato » 25 Jan 2004, 17:50

Churchill according to Lord Gort:
"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?"
Might we say then:
Churchill was a great man, but obssessed with the power of Germany he failed to observe the rise of the USSR (and maybe the US). 8)
Not Roosevelt however. Even obssessed by the power of Germany he wished the rise of the USSR and was quite happy with it. At Yalta as in Teheran he was not outmanouvered by Stalin but he gave Stalin what from the beginning he desired to give him.

Polynikes
Member
Posts: 2229
Joined: 03 Jan 2004, 03:59
Location: Atlanta, Georgia

#17

Post by Polynikes » 26 Jan 2004, 16:22

Churchill was an imperialist, an adventurist and a gambler.

He was blessed with foresight but sometimes belived too much in his own infallibility. He credits himself with the development of the tank in WWI as first lord of the admiralty but was also responsible for the disaster at Galipolli.

I doubt that Churchill ever had any antipathy for Australians any more than say Americans, South Africans, Scots, Welsh or Irish etc. Many Australians are convinced that the British thought of them as cannon-fodder (Canadians too after Dieppe) but the truth is that ALL empire forces were used like that in WWI.

A brief glance at the (British) casualty lists on the Somme will prove that.

In WWII Churchill was responsible for the dabacles in Norway and Greece - against the advice of his generals . The Greek adventure cost the British army the chance to clear North Africa before the Germans could arrive in force - El Alamien was un-necessary.

As a strategist and tactician, Churchill was deeply flawed but as a war-leader he knew no equal. In May 1940 after the success of Dunkirk, the overwhelming public position was to pull out of a war they didn't want in the first place. A nod from Churchill to accept Hitler's peace would've had almost 100% public support.

Churchill was never going to do that though and knew the folly of such a course.

Churchill saved the world in effect - without him, Germany would've beaten the USSR and been forced to accept German hedgmony with all the consequences that would've meant. Britain would also be caught up in the middle of a German-US nuclear war in the 50's.

Churchill was a hero. A flawed hero perhaps but a hero none the less.

Cheers from Rich


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

#18

Post by PolAntek » 27 Jan 2004, 06:02

viriato wrote: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.
Viriato,

I beg to differ. Roosevelt most certainly was duped by Stalin into believing that he had created some sort of wonderful democratic system in the Soviet Union where he managed to unite the people into working for the betterment of the state rather than on individual gain. Roosevelt’s gloating over his buddy’s achievements was simply ignorant considering all of the evidence to the contrary – the purges, the mass slavery system, the irrefutable evidence indicating Stalin was behind the Katyn forest massacre of Poles…. It was well established at the time that this mass murdering despot was anything but noble statesman interested in fostering democracy. Plain and simple – Roosevelt blew it big time. He was putty in Stalin’s hands – so effectively as to have made Roosevelt a most effective mouthpiece to propagandize to the American public about what a great guy ol’ Uncle Joe was!

Thinking that the world was now going to be a safe blissful place without Hitler’s fascists, he didn’t realize that communism was equally anti-freedom. And it was too late by the time FDR finally snapped out of his delusional state – the Red Army was pouring into Eastern Europe and there was no turning back. Meanwhile, Roosevelt was still sending tons of Lend-Lease supplies to Stalin after Hitler’s demise was already a certainty – including weapons that would soon be pointed at those same Americans. Stalin cleverly exploited all of Roosevelt’s (and Churchill’s) shortcomings and ran of with the spoils – including a map of Europe strikingly similar to the one he divided up during his days hobnobbing with Hitler.

The net result: You have Stalin hoodwinking the leaders of the free world so effectively as to result in the single most decisive blow against freedom and democracy of the 20th century.

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

#19

Post by Lord Gort » 27 Jan 2004, 11:00

Couldnt agree more with the above, except to add that Chruchill DID fight hard at Yalta for Poland, but Britains ever weakening postion vis a vis its allies combined with the lack of support of Roosevelt secured Europes fate, and Churchill's failure.


regards,

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

#20

Post by PolAntek » 27 Jan 2004, 15:56

Lord Gort wrote:Couldnt agree more with the above, except to add that Chruchill DID fight hard at Yalta for Poland, but Britains ever weakening postion vis a vis its allies combined with the lack of support of Roosevelt secured Europes fate, and Churchill's failure.


regards,
Yes - you are correct. That is why I have the spot light on Roosevelt as he most certainly did much to undermine Churchill's initial efforts. However, this still does not excuse Churchill for his bullying and then abandonment of the Poles as he ultimately cowered to Stalin in the closing chapter of this sad saga.

1jasonoz
Member
Posts: 62
Joined: 16 Apr 2003, 09:21
Location: australia

#21

Post by 1jasonoz » 31 Jan 2004, 03:42

Churchill refused to allow the Australian divisions in Africa to return to Australia, to help defend against the Japanesse. They only returned because the new Australian Prime Minister John Curtin, overrulled Churchill, and demanded they be returned.

Will not even go into Churchills handling of Gallipoli.

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

#22

Post by varjag » 31 Jan 2004, 13:08

It must now be obvious that I do not like Churchill as a 'statesman'. He took the reins of, arguably, the second richest nation in the world. His bulldog mentality, so much lauded today, looses sight of the fact that blinded by his beliefs in the might of the British Empire, he stubbornly refused to realise the new geopolitical facts. He squandered all of Britains wealth to pay for 'his war', he laid the foundations for dissolution of his beloved Empire and by the time that 'his victory' was won Britain was a beggar on the international scene. Once Might Albion was on it's last legs and it's gravedigger was Winston Spencer Churchill.

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

#23

Post by Andy H » 31 Jan 2004, 18:09

1jasonoz wrote:
Churchill refused to allow the Australian divisions in Africa to return to Australia, to help defend against the Japanesse. They only returned because the new Australian Prime Minister John Curtin, overrulled Churchill, and demanded they be returned
Your point being?


Andy H

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

#24

Post by Andy H » 31 Jan 2004, 18:15

varjag wrote:
It must now be obvious that I do not like Churchill as a 'statesman'. He took the reins of, arguably, the second richest nation in the world. His bulldog mentality, so much lauded today, looses sight of the fact that blinded by his beliefs in the might of the British Empire, he stubbornly refused to realise the new geopolitical facts.
I certainly think he was a man of his time, and as with any man of his time he has faults when viewed in detail & hindsight. Given that he refused to realise the 'new geopolitical facts' what should he have done then in your opinion.
He squandered all of Britains wealth to pay for 'his war', he laid the foundations for dissolution of his beloved Empire and by the time that 'his victory' was won Britain was a beggar on the international scene. Once Might Albion was on it's last legs and it's gravedigger was Winston Spencer Churchill.
Can you quantify 'his war'?

The dissolution of the British Empire were laid with the end of WW1, WW2 just hastened the inevitable thirst for every country to be it's own master.

User avatar
Dwight Pruitt
Member
Posts: 448
Joined: 26 Aug 2002, 06:53
Location: Indianapolis, Indiana
Contact:

#25

Post by Dwight Pruitt » 31 Jan 2004, 18:36

varjag wrote:He squandered all of Britains wealth to pay for 'his war', he laid the foundations for dissolution of his beloved Empire and by the time that 'his victory' was won Britain was a beggar on the international scene.
What was he to do? Stand back and let the Uk be bombed/invaded into sumbission? How do you quantify it as Churchill's war anyway? Doesn't Chamberlain have anything to do with it?

User avatar
Daryl Leeworthy
Member
Posts: 352
Joined: 01 Jan 2004, 23:22
Location: Oriel College, Oxford

#26

Post by Daryl Leeworthy » 31 Jan 2004, 21:42

Chamberlain's war? No, it wasn't Churchill's either. Churchill was certainly a good war leader - he did much to rally the country in a time of need. Why is it that in polls of the greatest Britons he invariably comes top ahead of men like Cromwell and women such as Elizabeth Fry? Simple - he was there at the top during the worst of it, not quite King Arthur reincarnate but even still.

I believe that his reputation is somewhat embelished but in the end we (Brits at least) can say he "turned out good". When scrutiny looks too closely at any major figure it finds things that make them look bad, in this case the Galipolli campaign, but surely it is his (or her) legacy that counts especially in Churchill's case.

"this was their Finest Hour" - a good orator if nothing else!

User avatar
redcoat
Member
Posts: 1361
Joined: 03 Mar 2003, 22:54
Location: Stockport, England

#27

Post by redcoat » 31 Jan 2004, 23:54

varjag wrote:It must now be obvious that I do not like Churchill as a 'statesman'. He took the reins of, arguably, the second richest nation in the world.
While we have dropped in the list a little, we are still in the top ten 8)

His bulldog mentality, so much lauded today, looses sight of the fact that blinded by his beliefs in the might of the British Empire, he stubbornly refused to realise the new geopolitical facts.
What!!!
That Hitler had won?
Thank god he didn't.

He squandered all of Britains wealth to pay for 'his war',
We Brits take the view that 'his war' was worth it :)
he laid the foundations for dissolution of his beloved Empire and by the time that 'his victory' was won Britain was a beggar on the international scene.
You take your choice and you pay your money :wink:

Every Brit (except for a few sad neo-nazi types) takes the view he made the right choice.

and Once Might Albion was on it's last legs and it's gravedigger was Winston Spencer Churchill.
Winston Churchill is actually the man who more than any other person 'saved' Europe.
If it wasn't for him Europe would have remained under Nazi or (if the invasion of Russia had still failed) Communist domination to this day, and the 'mighty Albion' would have become a shell of an Empire dominated by whatever dictatorship ruled Europe.
Churchill made a load of mistakes in his life, but in 1940 he got it right :wink:

alf
Member
Posts: 1343
Joined: 09 Oct 2003, 11:45
Location: Australia

#28

Post by alf » 01 Feb 2004, 02:17

Winston Churchill is actually the man who more than any other person 'saved' Europe. If it wasn't for him Europe would have remained under Nazi or (if the invasion of Russia had still failed) Communist domination to this day, and the 'mighty Albion' would have become a shell of an Empire dominated by whatever dictatorship ruled Europe.
Churchill made a load of mistakes in his life, but in 1940 he got it right
I think that is a good one paragraph summary, Churchill warned of Hilter from the earliest days of Hitlers rise, warning the British Parliament and people what Hitler was. He was treated as a joke basically and branded a war monger.

His defining moment is 1940

You ask, what is our policy? I can say: It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us; to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalogue of human crime.
What General Weygand called the Battle of France is over. I expect that the Battle of Britain is about to begin. Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilization. Upon it depends our own British life, and the long continuity of our institutions and our Empire. The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us. Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this Island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that, if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, "This was their finest hour
."

The highlighted parts in bold, shows exactly how Churchill saw Hiltler and Nazism.

As to Churchill keeping back the Australian Divisions, thats partly true. The British did not want to give up their finest infantry forces in the Middle East. but the 7th Divvy was sent home in Dec1941/Jan 1942 before Singapore fell (how else could so many have been captured in Java??), the 6th at the same time, only the 9th was kept till after El Alamen.

User avatar
Matt H.
Member
Posts: 554
Joined: 15 Aug 2003, 19:34
Location: Keele, Staffs, UK

#29

Post by Matt H. » 01 Feb 2004, 15:30

I believe Churchill is all he is cracked up to be. As Polynikes says, as a war leader, he knew no equal. Mistakes were made with regards to strategy, and with hindsight they can be confirmed as such, but at the time, his intervention in military matters was unavoidable. Britain needed a strong leader to grab the bull by the horns and make a stand, to draw a line stating "this far -- and no further!"

User avatar
Mauser K98k
Member
Posts: 766
Joined: 30 Aug 2003, 04:29
Location: Colorado

#30

Post by Mauser K98k » 01 Feb 2004, 21:10

Polynikes wrote: As a strategist and tactician, Churchill was deeply flawed but as a war-leader he knew no equal. In May 1940 after the success of Dunkirk, the overwhelming public position was to pull out of a war they didn't want in the first place. A nod from Churchill to accept Hitler's peace would've had almost 100% public support.

Churchill was never going to do that though and knew the folly of such a course.

Churchill saved the world in effect - without him, Germany would've beaten the USSR and been forced to accept German hedgmony with all the consequences that would've meant. Britain would also be caught up in the middle of a German-US nuclear war in the 50's.

Churchill was a hero. A flawed hero perhaps but a hero none the less.
My opinion exactly.

I thank God there was a Winston Churchill at the helm of the British Ship of State at that point in History.
As Matt H. noted, anyone else would have eagerly taken the populist course and "made peace" with Hitler; letting Europe sink into the "new dark ages" abyss.

As an orater and wordsmith, he was without equal, IMO.
My heart swells whenever I hear his speeches, or read what he has written.

Post Reply

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