Was Churchill overrated?

Hello rhs,

I do completely agree with your opinion about Churchill in regards to the Nazis - if not for him - propably mad Hitler would have gotten his way.

But this is and was never an issue to me, my part for dislike about Churchill is his attitude against Germany before Hitler. And in those days/decades there were politicians and those who liked Germany, were neutral to Germany or disliked Germany or even hated Germany.

Thats all

Regards
Kruska

 

Hello Jaeger,

Try and read 'Mein Kampf" (even though I think it is impossible for anyone to acctually read this retarded "book" all the way).

And you will find that there is no hate against Britain. Hitler actually analyses judges them as 'brothers" which I personally find absolutly hillarious.

So personally I believe that it is not advisable to read a historical/political book that was written by a politician in order to judge the author "true" believes.

Jaeger, are you back home or in some messy place?

Regards
Kruska

 

Kruska.

By "writing Hitler and his gang" I was aiming at Churchill sternly opposed them.

I did read Mein Kampf som 15 years ago. Shoddy painter, shoddy writer. No other choice than becoming a dictator

I am in Norway for the time beeing.

 

Brian Boru retreated fast enough didn't he.

 

To be honest I dont think Churchill had much time for any one outside of GB or the USA . He was born into Aristocracy with anglo american parents and was a right wing politician prone to changing his affiliations.He was what we call a Maverick with different ways a seeing things which did not make him popular in government circles.

It must also be said, apart from upper class circles, the general feeling in GB after WW1 was at the best dislike and at the worst hatred of Germany. This was probably mirrored by most of the German population who had a worst a time.

It is difficult for us to think as people did in those times , our life experiences are so very different.I purchased a BMW and my mother in law refused to travel in it when she realised it was German ,(her sister was killed in the Birmingham blitz) and that was 15 years ago. I have had Citroens ever since.
Your thoughts I would say are correct but to understand his attitudes will require further reading which only yourself can decide its worth....richardS

Churchills writings are nothing like Mien Kamf. His " History of the English Speaking People" was much acclaimed. It was history not a political manifesto. Many of our soldiers became Members of Parliament after the wars and wrote honest and informative books..

 

Mein Kampf is utterly horrible, kudos to you for enduring it..

 

Churchill was haunted by the Dardanelles for the rest of his life, It appears to be the cause of a great many of his 'Black Dogs', and even engendered a rare hesitance in the man whenever any kind of Amphibious assault was mooted.
It may have destroyed him at the time the Cromer Report came out (no matter if that document was a whitewash or not, it still crippled him politically). But it can still be viewed by me as a good thing in the overall long-term that he stayed in politics.

If he had not, or had fully slunk away to Journalism or painting I just can't picture any British politician of the period that could have Galvanised resistance to Hitler in 1940 as WSC did. From Day one he saw the war as a World conflict, in a manner that many others refused to believe possible (either through blind hope, disbelief that it was all happening again as it had in 14-18, or pure ill-judgement). That foresight alone was such an important factor in why he was the right man for WW2, and had the good judgement, not shared by all of his peers, to court the USA from the start.

Combine that galvanisation of resistance with the diplomatic offensive on the USA right up to Pearl harbour and you have two of the absolutely crucial factors in defeating Hitler across the entire war revolving at several points purely around the willpower of one peculiar old man, who had been apparently washed up so many times in his career.
I feel you can't overrate him in WW2 terms, he was utterly central to the successful outcome, and despite his faults other viewpoints are largely sophistry.

Though I do sometimes wonder what would have happened without Alanbrooke there to counter and calm WSCs wilder schemes and impulses. And importantly; place the right men in the right diplomatic/military positions, showing a fine skill in diverting WSC away from some potentially poor choices of men. I feel quite strongly that not enough credit is given to the two men as a team. Both remarkable figures, but combined, the sum was even greater than the parts.

~A

 

Churchill saw Hitler for what he stood for, he was shouted down so to say in the mid 1930's. How many of those who shouted him down in 1940? Churchill stood his ground in our darkest hour and thankfully he was the right man who was not going to bow down to Hitler. Churchill was not perfect and made errors but he stood with his people and got the job done.

 

yes

 

Well that certainly adds a lot to the debate and increases our knowledge on the subject.

Dont be shy Komrade .Please put forward your viewpoint, we would all like to see it.

 

Churchills attitude to Germany can be illustrated with this one quote;

"One ought never to turn one's back on a threatened danger and try to run away from it. If you do that, you will double the danger. But if you meet it promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half".

Winston Churchill didn't hate German's as such, he was merely fully aware of the threat that the Kaisers Germany and the Nazi's posed to Britain.

ps, another Churchill quote;

"I hate nobody except Hitler - and that is professional."

 

Why don't you.
You seem to have bought into the myths and not bothered to find out the truth.

Over the top with myths of Gallipoli - Gerard Henderson - www.theage.com.au

 

It was the Luftwaffe who instituted area bombing, it was the attack on Coventry which showed Bomber Command its effectiveness.

 

I checked out Churchill and his contemporaries a few months ago to understand the political dynamics of the UK at the onset of WW II. The consensus reached was indeed what Martin said: Churchill was the right man in the right place at the right time.
I remember asking Ron Goldstein about Churchill in another thread here and he told me:
"Cometh the hour and cometh the man.
The man was Churchill."

 

When the war started the RAF were not allowed to bomb targets in Germany because it posed the risk of civilian casualties. They were only allowed to attack German warships at sea.

Germany meanwhile bombed whatever they wanted in Poland, including massed attacks on cities.

Then Germany turned its attention to Norway, again bombing cities when it suited them. Then they invaded France, Belgium and the Netherlands. On the first day they bombed a German town, Freiburg, by mistake, killing 60 civilians. They thought they were bombing Dijon in France.

When Rotterdam was in the way they bombed it, killing 900 civilians. It was only following the attack on Rotterdam that the RAF was allowed to attack military targets in Germany.

When Britain's turn began the Germans did not "accidentally" bomb cities, they did so deliberately. Goering called them "dislocation raids", designed to ensure the civilian population received no rest. On 19 August he ordered a "great attack" on Liverpool, to be delivered at night by more than 100 bombers.

In July 258 British civilians were killed by German bombing. In August over 1,000, and over 6,000 in September. Britain killed less than 400 German civilians by bombing in the whole of 1940.

It's often claimed the bombing of London was a single mistaken incident, but that's wrong as well. The first serious attack on London happened in mid August in broad daylight, an attack on an airfield in Croydon also hit a perfume factory, killing more than 50 civilians. From the 18/19 August the Luftwaffe dropped small numbers of bombs on London on almost every night.

The evil British using poor Commonwealth troops as cannon fodder meme is, as usual, wide of the mark.

Deaths at Gallipoli by country:

Newfoundland - 49
India - 1,358
New Zealand - 2,721
Australia - 8,709
France - 10,000
Britain - 21,255
Turkey - 86,692

I suspect too many people get their ideas on Gallipoli from the (incredibly biased) film rather than history books.

 

Well said, but one has to recall at all times that "historical-ethnocentric" mindsets of today are largely driven by "movies", "docu-dramas", and other visual input rather than printed history.

Sadly too many "grandfathers" remember what is convenient for the "tale", and even fathers can be guilty of this if our father is of WW2 age and experience. Then add in the completely understood "the story expands with time" factor and the entire system of "personal recall" starts to come under suspicion as to its veracity if compared to documentation.

Sometimes the "harsh light" of history is too condemning, and destroys too many closely held justifications for the loss of a loved one, and sometime the "legend" becomes the "history" (paraphrasing a quote from the movie, The Man who Shot Liberty Valance); "When the legend becomes the history, print the legend.")

Not to demean any vet. of any war, in any time-frame. But at times the personal stories must be tempered a tad remembering that like it or not, not all humans are "heroes", and not all humans are "cowards". They fall, to a great part between the two extremes.

 

Let us not forget the city of Guernica which during the Spanish Civil War was destroyed in a manner to be seen later in WW2.The Luftwaffe were contracted out to Gen. Franco and in the process had some on the job training. It worked at Guernica , so many towns in Europe suffered a similar fete.Other leaders failed to see the future, thankfully Churchill did not.

brndirt , I agree with you that movies and docudramas are not to be relied on but far to many do.They have been mentioned in this thread a souces of opinion. Movies are entertainmemnt, docudramas a comic book approach to history, Wham ,Bam and Splatt. If people want to know history then read books and lots of them from a variety sources. It is time consuming and not everyone is of a mind to do it but that is the way to gain all the facts.

 

Hello Hop,

the only part on Gallipoli that i would interpret as differnet is the tranaslation/interpretation of Casulties.

Now 2700 Nz's plus 8700 Au's would represent a % ratio to England in figures of nearly 80-100,000 English cassulties but they "only" had 21,000.

So I can follow the ANZAC's on that part.

As for the bombing issue:

Who the hell cares?? Hitler started of the war and any oposing country would have been stupid not to react with whatever means on whatever target.
Maybe someone can help me to check - but for the sake of "who bombed first"(England /Germany) IMO, AFAIK it was indeed the RAF with a raid on Duesseldorf in Mai/June 1940?

It was not the question of who bombed first on this planet - but IIRC the question refered only to England and Germany)

(Okay I just rechecked the attack was on the 15.05. 1940 - was there a bombing in WWII of targets in England before this date?)

But as I said, who cares?? or what does it matter??

Regards
Kruska