Was Churchill overrated?

so winnie was a belgian fdr a soviet ww2 was caused by the prussian blucher and his black corps and i thought this was about winnie lets go back to 100 trs war though

 

Where are these figures from?

 

Why do you ask?

Do you have other figures? if yes I would indeed love to have a look on them.
Those figures are accessible to anyone who will dig into WWI literature.
BTW, almost identical figures can be found "even" in WIKI....

Regards
Kruska

 

The figures are probably good.

 

No actual threats, but Britain did see German dominance of Europe by military aggression as a very real threat. This was not helped by the Haldane Mission of 1912, when British Secretary of State for War Lord Haldane went to Berlin to try to restrain Tirpitz's naval program. In the talks the Germans wanted a conditional promise of British neutrality in a continental war as a price for suspension of the new naval bill.
Tragedy & Hope - Carroll Quigley (Part 5: The First World War: 1914 - 1918)

These figures are quite meaningless in any comparison, Prussia did not have a vast Empire to police and control, Empires are costly to run (why Britain got rid of their Empire so quickly after WW2) Its also true that Britain went on a massive ship building program in response to Prussia's attempts to build a fleet capable of taking on the Royal Navy.
Lets not forget that the Kaiser himself referred to the British army as that 'contemptible little army' which is understandable when you realise that the British were only able to send six infantry divisions and one cavalry division when war first broke out

Read more: The British Army in 1914: World War One's Professional Fighting Force. | Suite101.com

Seeing another poster has politely asked you for a source for the figures you gave above, and you have refused, don't you think this statement is more than a little hypocritical

Go on then, lets see yours.

 

Again I will ask you to forward an occasion where Prussia forwarded military aggression to deal with France and Russia from 1900 to 1913.

Sometimes maybe true but not always. Britain even reduced its naval spendings between 1900 - 1913

British Naval Policy - 1890-1920

Quote:
Total expenditure from naval votes had been brought down from a maximum of £36,860,000 in 1904-05 to £31,419,000 in 1907-8. After four years of declining naval expenditure provided for in Navy Estimates, Parliament was asked in April 1908 to vote 900,000 more for the coming year than for its predecessor. The provision for new construction in 1908-9 exclusive of armaments amounts to £7,545,OOO, and was less than the corresponding provision made during any previous year in this century. In 1907-8 it was £ 8,100,000; in 1904-5 it exceeded £ll millions, largely in consequence of the purchase of two Chilian battleships ; the previous range since 1901-2 had been between these two years. This drop in new construction — coming immediately after the revision of the German naval program with its largely increased expenditure — naturally gave rise to considerable discussion.

The threat of Russia, France and GB towards Prussia, is what caused the alliance with Austria- Hungaria and Turkey and the Kaisers stupidity to neglect Russia as an alliance partner in contra to Bismarks dissaproval of Austria.

I never stated that the strenght was irrelevant - in contra, but the comment that you cited on behalf of the Kaiser upon GB sending its expeditionary force is irrelevant.

I already did:

In 1911 the British Chief of Staff promises towards the French CoS.......

Belgium was in 1914 - we are not discussing this occurence - that Britain took Prussias invasion of Belgium as a reason to declare war on Germany is known. However the 1911 agreement of GB towards France nullifies this reason anyway.

British understatement eh? what makes you so sure that Prussia provoked GB and not the other way around.

Quote:
The Liberal and Radical press in England, taking up Prince Bullow's statement that Germany thought as little of challenging British maritime supremacy as of building a railway to the moon, began a strenuous campaign for a limitation of armaments. The movement reached its height when Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, the Liberal Prime Minister, published an article in the first issue of the Nation (London), a new Radical weekly, in which he invited Germany to discuss the whole problem; only to encounter an obstinate refusal from Prince Bullow.

The Marocco crisis showed very clearly that it was GB that sided with its previous enemies/rivals France and Russia in order to press issues against Prussia.

British Naval Policy - 1890-1920

In March 1905, Kaiser Wilhelm visited Tangiers in Morocco and gave a speech in which he promised to defend Morocco as 'free and independent ‘ and ‘subject to no foreign control'. The French (fearful of another war with Germany) were going to back down, but the British [fearful of a German naval presence in Morroco] encouraged them to take a firm line. This First Moroccan Crisis of 1905 was finally adjusted by the Algeciras Conference in 1906. France, Britain, and Russia forced Germany to promise to stay out of Morocco. Germany felt humiliated.

You are blind to the fact that it was the British who caused the naval arnsrace in the first place and not Prussia. It was GB who entered the armsrace to counter France and Russia and not Prussia

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/uk-rn-policy2.htm

In 1888-9, the Conservative administration of the Marquess of Salisbury was in power, and Lord George Hamilton was First Lord of the Admiralty. At that time, the demand for the two-power standard was first formulated, meaning thereby that England at all times must remain navally strong enough to bid defiance to her (at that time) strongest rivals, France and Russia, the Powers of the Dual Alliance. This demand, then only in the mouth of English naval experts, had now become a national shibboleth, and every cabinet since, no matter what its other creed, has practically lived up to this program. In 1889 there advened, under strong public pressure, the passage of the Naval Defense Act, which enabled the British Admiralty to begin the five years' program of shipbuilding, with the immediate construction of 10 large battleships, 42 cruisers, and 18 torpedo destroyers.

The armsrace of GB Naval Defence Act 1889, caused other countries to draw up to the British naval power.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/uk-rn-policy2.htm

England's navy had not only attained the two-power standard, but considerably exceeded it. At that time, England was twice as strong navally as France, and more than thrice as strong as Russia, while she had at least quadrupled the strength of any of the minor sea powers, Germany and the United States included. Within the short time since, however, a change was wrought in the situation, a change which comprises above all a new grouping of naval powers.

In 1898, Germany, the United States, and Russia decided simultaneously on radical naval measures, especially on increases so large and for such long periods in advance as to alter the complexion of the whole very materially. France followed two years later with a similar plan of increase. The Russian plan contemplated the construction of eight large battleships, ten small cruisers, and thirty torpedo destroyers, they costing altogether about $100,000,000.

How come GB wasn't aware about those other countries e.g. the USA to pose a military threat and agression towards GB interests??? how come GB whole history interpretation gets focused entirely on Prussia despite Prussia not threatening anyone militarily in Europe or outside. All colonial issues with France and GB were settled diplomatically without Prussia using military force.

The US used military force in Cuba, Honduras, Philipines etc. to rid a previous colonial power of its colonies - which Prussia never did.

The whole thing with you Brits is that the vast majority of you guys just can't face the fact that Britain would not tollerate anyone to rival its strenght - especially not Prussia. Therefore all the blame is set against Prussia by simply denying GB own hegemonial interests.

WWI and the fact that Germany was defeated led to the distortion of history by GB, France, USA and Russia.
By simply placing the blame and cause of WWI solely onto the Germans.

Sorry no, it is not hyprocritical or rude but anticipative - I am aware how these discussion usually go on - asking for sources with not bringing up oneself and then trying to dismantle other peoples sources with mostly irrational or biased opinions.

If Drucius, feels that I gave a rude answer - I have no problem to reason with him or to appologize - but I will let Drucius judge on this and not you on his behalf.

Regards
Kruska

 

Nice article on the Anglo-German Naval race
The Great Naval Race (Peter Padfield)


"The decision for war against the three world empires of France, Russia and Britain was taken by a tiny handful of men [in Berlin] who seem to have had hardly any idea of the shattering consequences that their decision would have for Germany, for Europe and for the world down to the present day."
- John Rohl, "The Kaiser and his Court"

On the claim that Britain started the arms race
http://www.ssi.unitn.it/en/download/WP032006Keefer.pdf

Not True. The Austro-Hungarians deserve their share of the blame as well

 

Peter Padfield is convinced that the official cover-up on Hess's flight to Great Britain in May 1941 continues to this day since the peace proposals Hess undoubtedly brought with him to present to the Duke of Hamilton for the British 'peace party' in which he had been led to believe have never been released, nor has their existence been admitted; indeed very obvious attempts have been made to delete all record of these papers.

I would rather take Peter Padfield as an historian of personal interpretation. He also is a "historian" when it comes to Doenitz, Himmler and Hess.

Like I said:

You are blind to the fact that it was the British who caused the naval arnsrace in the first place and not Prussia.

The whole thing with you Brits is that the vast majority of you guys just can't face the fact that Britain would not tollerate anyone to rival its strenght - especially not Prussia. Therefore all the blame is set against Prussia by simply denying GB own hegemonial interests.
- see the British Prof John Rohl.

Regards
Kruska

 

No. Prussia engaging in an naval race turned a potential ally into a potential foe, but it didn't cause the war

Britain didn't force Prussia to declare war on Russia and France, and invade two neutral nations.

 

I see, so the armsrace of GB Naval Defence Act 1889 pointed towards France and Russia was okay.
That due to this in 1898, Germany, the United States, Russia and later France decided simultaneously on radical naval measures is also okay - but not for Prussia, I see

And the Merchandising act was a realistic and friendly guesture towards Prussia to become allies, I see.

I never said or proclaimed that, -so why do you resort to irrational and incorrect accusations ?

What I forwarded was that In 1911 the British Chief of Staff promises towards the French CoS....... which allowed France and Russia to play balls with Prussia.

BTW it is about 0300 in Britain - so have a good rest and let's argue - ah... see you tomorrow.

Regards
Kruska

 

(To the OP) Where do you honestly think civilization would be now without WC?

 

While the USA was seen as a threat to British interests, it was never seen as a direct threat to Britain itself, because unlike Germany, it never threatened Britain’s naval dominance around her own shores
The evidence is there in the sources we have both produced that the Germany built up their navy to the second largest in the world in order to put pressure on Britain to seek an accommodation (which favoured Germany) with them. It seems to have never occurred to the German leadership that this threat might force Britain to seek other allies in Europe who were also opposed to German domination of Europe instead.

Redcoat

Because this gets to the heart of British involvement in 1914, if Germany had not been seen as the aggressor with the declaration on war against both France and Russia and the invasion of Belgium, its probable that Britain would have remained neutral, despite the unofficial agreements Britain had with France
History Today - Germany, Britain & the Coming of War in 1914 : Richard Wilkinson explains what went wrong in Anglo-German relations before the First World War.

 

From The Sidelines

What a Battle of the Giants..and I dont mean Great Britain and Prussia.

Absolutely fascinating and so well researched. Directly opposing views but each point is traded punch for punch and all according to The Queensbury Rules.

Great Stuff and I'm learning tons.

regards..richardS

 

You are absolutly correct, - actually Prussia was for some strange reason missled to believe that a strong Prussian navy would present themselves as an attractive partner to GB global interests. At the same time they (Prussia) did not want to give in, just as GB didn't want to loose its present power or position. Therefore Britain saw its interests rightfully being threatened by Prussia, whereas Prussia thought of Britain to be the obstruction to its rightfull place amongst the leading nations.

Prussias aim was not to level or advance above Britain but to press issues against France and Russia. Britain however was taking into account that sooner or later Prussia might press its issues against Britain as well, and as such viewing upon the Kaisers naval/military ambitions as a thread to herself.

Unfortunatly for Britain and Prussia the Kaiser was quite an uncompromising and unskillfull character in diplomatic matters (probably from mothers side ), whereas Churchill/Tirpitz weren't giving in characters either. (so if one knocks two stones together sparks will fly and sooner or later one of the stones will break first)

The British analysed the Prussian naval units and somehow received the impression that the Prussian navy was poised to counter "exclusively" British naval forces. Whereas the Prussians wrongly thought of using that naval force as a added "argument" to press their interests against mainly France.

Correct again, but Prussia had no other choice but to advance through Belgium and Luxemburg in order to gain the advantage against France, since Russia had already mobilized and Prussia's (the Kaiser personally - see Nicky kletters) diplomatic mission failed.
It is interesting to note that the Russian CoS had admitted later on, that Russia was already poised for war against Prussia before the Prussian declaration of war against Serbia.

So in conclusion:

Britain and Prussia were unwilling/unable to compromise, and thus allowed France and Russia to play balls, the assassination of the Austrian Archduke was just the welcomed reason to start of the war that was needed to set things straight between Russia, France and Prussia.

Britain was in the position to "choose" sides that would enable her to maintain its leadership role. Due to the fact that Britain interpreted itself being mainly threatened by Prussia convinced her to choose sides most suitable to her interest.

And as such a war was unavoidable, however to my believe the British choosing the Entente as its assurance made it become a WW in 1914 - if a neutral Britain might have been the victim of Prussian determination to dominate later on is not certain but can't be outruled.

Regards
Kruska

 

Nice post Kruska
While there are still some areas of disagreement I think we've reached common ground on the main issues

 

Hello redcoat,

don't worry mate, our English and Scottish friends me and a common German friend are still in dissagreement about this topic on certain issues since our schooltimes.
One Scotts guy was sucessfully indoctrinated ahh.. convienced to share our point of view , but sometimes he tends to forward objections

Regards
Kruska

 

The original question was.....Was he overated? The facts of 1940 speak for themselves and anser the questiion.

He led his people off their knees to their survival. Many have cause to thank his existance.

No matter how interesting this thread may be....what histoical or hysterical in some cases, lessons we see espoused on here....No measly mouthed words can harm him now, if only some espousing the words were or could be a fraction of the man then they would be worth listening to.

 

Population of Germany 1910 = 64.9m
Population of UK 1911 = 45.4m

Germany is clearly spending far more than the UK on their army and slightly less on their navy. You appear to have shot yourself in the foot, old chum.

Pretending that Germany had no warlike intentions in 1914 is disingenuousness taken to ludicrous extremes.