Was Churchill overrated?

Fair enough for one battle, but Gallipoli is virtually unknown in the UK because it was a minor battle from our point of view. If you take overall casualties then British deaths dwarf those of Commonwealth soldiers, not just in numbers but in percentage of population as well.

As I said earlier, the RAF was allowed to bomb only German warships at sea, the government was keen to avoid even the risk of German civilian casualties.

The first break in that policy was a German attack on the Orkney islands on 16 March 1940. Whilst they were aiming for military targets they hit civilian housing as well and killed a civilian.

The British response was to authorise a single attack on a German seaplane base on the island of Sylt.

There were no further attacks until 10 May, when the Germans attacked targets throughout France, Belgium and the Netherlands. They also dropped some bombs on Kent that night, although that was probably a navigation error.

So the first deliberate bombing of land targets was by Germany.

It doesn't really. But it is important to establish the facts with so many revisionist running around.

The British government at the start of the war ruled out any bombing that posed a risk to civilians. They kept to that policy as the Germans killed thousands of civilians in Poland, then in Norway. They only abandoned that policy, although they still restricted themselves to strictly military targets, following widespread German bombing in the west.

 

Hello Hop,

you are right about those revisionist running around or popping up in forums such as ours.

However constant ranting against Germans or bringing up "facts" in order to demonstrate that it was all the Germans who did the evil or came up with something evil first doesn't contribute either.

So if a "maybe" revisionist turns up, and forwards the "Blitz was due to Churchill" he could also be just an ill informed person. To counter this by forwarding that Hitler or Germany had killed thousands already by bombingraids in Poland, Holland, Spain etc. doesn't contribute to the before set argument or disclaims it- does it?

Now for my part, I haven't heard about a bombing of Kent on the 10th of May 1940.
I wouldn't know if the below website is correct or complete in regards to events of this kind - but it mirrors my knowledge.

World War 2 Timelines 1939-1945 - European Air War 1940 - Worldwar-2.net

Regards
Kruska

 

ref bombs dropped on Kent May 1940 Try this www.rafbdhistory.co.uk cheers.Jason

 

Hello wtid45,

thanks, for the link - an interesting link to do some reading

Quote: In May 1940, the first German bomb to be dropped on Mainland Britain fell near to the city of Canterbury in Kent

But the first one on England mentioned in the same website was actually already

On November 6th 1939, a bomb was dropped on RAF Sullom Voe in the Shetlands - damn fast those Luftwaffe guys

Regards
Kruska

 

The Shetland Isles belong to Scotland, not England.

ps The first German bomb on England was actually on the 24th December 1914, but that was a different war

 

Well we Germans don't differentiate between Scotland, England and Wales - we also do not use the term Great Britain or United Kingdom - unless due to offical government use.

We just call the whole place England

Regards
Kruska

 

I find this post difficult understand. Facts are used to prove the point in a debate.Some people may say that the Blitz was due to Churchill because he had the guts to face down Hitler and the country he lead Germany.Hitler did not start WW2 all on his own. The Blitzkrieg worked fine in continental Europe but the English Channel meant it had to turn into a bombing war sooner rather than later. The Luftwaffe was the only force Hitler could use directly and that is why Churchill refusedto send more RAF fighters to France when it all started going wrong.
Hitlers Germany at that time was evil no one can call it anything else Its Armed Forces invaded and murdered across Europe. It murdered more and more of its own citizens as the war went on. How else do you think we should describe the Germany of this time...a benign democracy perhaps.
Some may consider this a rant , that is their choice but I will not apolagise for Englands greatest Son seeing as he was one of The Good Guys and he did what was right.

 

I sense a hint of patriotism.

 

I'd have thought it does.

Not many people have. I believe the bombs fell in open countryside, and I'm sure they were meant for somewhere in France, Belgium or the Netherlands.

The bombing in the Orkneys was deliberate, though.

The point is that the Luftwaffe did not show restraint in the bombing war. At a time when the British and French banned the bombing of Germany, and when Norway, Belgium and the Netherlands didn't even contemplate it, the Germans bombed what they chose, regardless of civilian casualties. The Luftwaffe didn't say "we can't bomb Rotterdam, think of the civilian casualties", they instead sent the bombers and warned the Dutch they would do the same to other cities unless they surrendered.

With that in mind it's naive to think that British cities would be spared.

The Blitz didn't begin because of anything Britain did, any more than Rotterdam was bombed because of the Dutch. It was simply the next target for the Luftwaffe.

 

What does setting three things straight have to do with patriotism??

Regards
Kruska

 

Hello Hop and rhs,

I am aware that the following post will be putting oil into the flames. But sorry, I am simply getting tired about these endless accusations and fixed mindsets.

- the claim or to forward that Churchill caused the Blitz on England is to my interpretation absolutly correct, since he refused Hitlers peace offer.
However neglecting the fact and therefore ill informed:
Churchill (England) got targeted by Hitler and the Luftwaffe because he chose to fight the Nazis. Statements such as: Hitler started WWII in 1939 is also absolutly incorrect. That Hitler attacked Poland in 1939 is absolutly correct - that due to Englands, Churchills decision to fight the Nazis, the 2nd WW in Western Europe erupted already in 1939 and not later is also absolutly correct. That Hitler with Churchill around or not would have attacked England (in case that England would not have agreed to Hitlers terms) sooner or later is likely.

Due to the fact that Churchill anticipated the Nazis future expansion plans and therefore ridding England of any chance to dominate not to mention to survive an attack by Hitler, he decided upon a nowadays termed pre emtive strike.

That the Nazis murdered millions of Jews, and anyone who didn't fit into their agenda is the sad and sickening truth about them - however this agenda was not obvious to Churchill or anyone besides the inner circle of the Nazi Leadership in September 1939 since phase one and two in regards to KZ(1933 -1939) restricted itself onto Germans who didn't fit into the Nazi agenda and about 25,000 Jews arrested during the November Prognom 1938. The total KZ inmates later even reduced and counted less then 22,000 people when the attack on Poland started.

That the Luftwaffe did not show restraint in the bombing war is absolutly correct, that the RAF didn't either is also absolutly correct.
The RAF just couldn't do much in the beginning, simply because Bomber Command wasn't ready to implement a bombing war over Germanys territory in 1930/1940.

So when the Germans bomb it is all about inhumane and evil.
But when the English bomb it simply comes down to fighting Nazis - who's future crimes were not obvious to the English public in September 1939 till I guess until 1943/44.

Can anyone please forward an open newspaper article from England that indicates or proofs that the Englisch public in general was aware or realized that the Nazis plan to murder or murdered millions of Jews in 1939 -1940 -1941.
If this can be forwarded it would at least justify Churchills intentions as those of a war for humanity and not simply as "in the interest of England"

Obviously the French and others were not aware - otherwise they would or could have stepped in immediatly to help save humanity and wouldn't have waited to be attacked. Chamberlain must have missed out on this crucial information as well.

So who was the warmonger Churchill or Hitler? To me very obvious: both

One wanted to expand his country, the other wanted to upkeep his country's influence and power - both chose war as their instrument.

Who was the greatest danger to humanity? To me having past history available very obvious:Hitler and the Nazis

But to my believe this was not obvious to scale in September 1939.

War has never been good, and has never been justifiable - unless one defends himself or others against an agressive act which was not provoked, so what is the problem in admitting to history? - just because the name Churchill is involved?? or someone speaks up in favour for something German, or England is mentioned unfavourably?

Let me please sincerely appologize to anyone who will find this posting offensive, Nazi like or unbearable - it is absolutely not my intention - but I for my part feel that certain issues need to be outspoken in order to be hopefully clarified once and for all.

Now feel free to correct my point of view, or make live simple and just call me a revisionist.

Regards
Kruska

 

I am probably echoing a few other posters here, but Churchill was human, he made mistakes. Every single leader of World War Two made mistakes. However, I think his "goods" outweigh his "bads"and that too much of this discussion is focused on the "bads"

To give a short description of Churchill and his workings:

The embodiment and voice of Allied resistance to the Axis from May 1940 until the United States entered the war a year and a half later, Churchill was a graduate of Sandhurst Royal Military College (20th in class of 130) and had accumulated a great deal of battlefield experience in sixty-five adventurous years. This included clashes in India, celebrated exploits during the Boer War, and service as an officer on the Western Front during World War I (after 1925 Dardanelles campaign that he advocated as First Lord of the Admiralty became the disaster of Gallipoli). Once named prime minister, Churchill created for himself the additional office of Minister of Defense- appointing as his ministry chief of staff General Sir Hastings Ismay, who became his closest and most trusted military aide. The two met at least once every day with the chiefs of staff of all the military services (441 meetings in 1941 and 414 in 1944). This group ran Britain's military war, the chief's of staff becoming adept at restraining their pugnacious prime minister's more impractical schemes. Many of Churchill's ideas were practical, however, and displayed an inventiveness born of desperation, military experience, and an ever-inquiring mind. In 1940, he suggested the formation of small "striking parties," which evolved into special forces such as commandos. He was an early and fervent proponent of paratroops and development of specialized landing craft. He designed (in 1917) a prototype of the floating "Mulburry" harbors the Allies used at Normandy, and he advocated placing artillery along the English coast with sufficent range to fire across the English Channel.

Promising the British people nothing but "blood, sweat, toil, and tears," as he assumed wartime leadership, Churchill grimly told Soviet ambassador Ivan Maisky in July 1940 that his general strategy was simply "to last out the next three months." Yet his strategic vision was generally more optimistic and sweeping, rooted in his absolute determination that the Allies would prevail- and that the far-flung British Empire must remain intact and ready for post-war challenges. To achieve these ends, he maintained the best possible relations with his allies (while growing increasingly wary of Soviet intentions for the future); encouraged maximum support from the British Dominions; backed effective guerrilla organizations in occupied countries; incorporated thousands of nationals of occupied countries into the British armed forces; and advocated his closing-the-ring strategy favoring operations around the periphery of Europe. His emphasis on the Mediterranean remained a sources of friction between Churchill and the Americans, who by late 1943 had had taken command of the Allied effort From their position of strength (and because of their eagerness to bring the Soviet Union into the war against Japan), the Americans became more willing to accommodate the Soviet Union during discussions of military strategy-and less willing to be swayed by Churchill's arguments. After one such argument was ignored at the November 28-December 1, 1943, Allied conference, Churchill wrote: "I realized at Teheran for the first time what a small nation we are. There I sat with the great Russian bear on one side of me with paws outstretched, and on the other side the great American buffalo, and between the two sat the poor little English donkey who was the only one, the only of the three, who knew the right way home."

David Kennedy

 

Just to prove the germans did occasionally make mistakes
Bombing of Dublin in World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
and i doubt that was the only one.

I agree with the poster that said the british had no way of knowing this and given that the germans bombed london in WWI its natural to assume that the english saw a repeat.

Personally i think eisenhower was the great man of WWII.
As for churchills world view i get the impression he had very little time for anyone outside brition,america or australia.

 

Churchill had no use for Australia and the Australians, and, for that matter, didn't think much of the Americans, either. But in Churchill's mind, the Irish and Canadians could do no wrong! LOL!

 

right.i thought he liked canadians,enough of them died.

 

Was Churchill over-rated ?

I think not.

Martin Gilbert is generally acknowledged as being one of the world's finest biographers and in his preface to "Churchill-A Life" by Martin Gilbert he says:

This was the Churchill I knew during WW2.

He was the Hon.Colonel of my old Regiment, the IVth Queen's Own Hussars

I was amongst those who kept vigil when his life was ebbing away.

As one of the crowds in Trafalgar Square I attended his funeral.

Despite all this I was still one of those who voted him out of the Post-War Government because, as someone with a working class background, I wanted to give Labour a chance.

But was "Was Churchill over-rated ?"

I think not.

Ron

 

Is this a serious post ???????
Churchill's mother, who he adored, was American.

 

Have you any idea how foolish this makes you look.

 

German friendship. by Winston S. Churchill.

An article posted in the London Evening Standard on the September 17, 1937

I find myself pilloried, by Dr. Goebbels's Press as an enemy of Germany. That description is quite untrue. Before the war, I proposed to Von Tirpitz a naval holiday. If this had been accepted, it would enormously have eased the European tension, and possibly have averted the catastrophe. At the moment of the Armistice, as is well known, I proposed filling a dozen great liners with food, and rushing them into hamburg as a gesture of humanity. As Secretary of State for War in 1919, I pressed upon the Supreme Council the need of lifting the blockade, and laid before them the reports from our generals of the Rhine which eventually procured that step. I took a great deal of personal responsibility in sending home, months before they would otherwise have been liberated, about one hundred thousand German prisoners, who were caged up in the Pas de Calais. I was vehemently opposed to the French invasion of the Ruhr. In order to prevent a repetition of it, I exerted myself in Mr. Baldwin's Cabinet to have the Treaty of Locarno made to cut both ways, so that Germany as well as France had British protection against aggression. Therefore no one has a right to describe me as the enemy of Germany except in Wartime.

But my duty lies to my own country. As an independent Conservative member I felt bound to give the alarm when, five years ago, the vast secret process of German re-armament, contrary to the Treaty, began to be apparent. I also felt bound to point out to the Government in 1934 that Germany had already created a powerful military air force which would soon be stronger than the British Air Force. My only regret is that I was not believed. I can quite understand that this action of mine would not be popular in Germany. Indeed, it was not popular anywhere. I was told I was making ill will between the two countries. I am sure that if Herr Hitler had been in my position, and had believed what I believed, he would have acted in the same way. In times like these the safety of one's own country must count for more than saying smooth things about other countries. At any rate, I did not feel at all penitent when, six months later, I heard Mr. Baldwin admit that the Government had been wrong in their figures and information. And ever since ministers have been bewailing "the years that the locusts have eaten."

Similarly, for the last few months, in Parliament and in these letters, I drew attention to a serious danger to Anglo-German relations which arises out of the organization of German residents in Britain into a closely knit, strictly disciplined body. I wonder what Dr. Goebbels would think if we had fifteen or twenty thousand Englishmen in Berlin, all strong anti-Nazis, who, while they kept within the law, were none the less all bound together, attending meetings at frequent intervals, and putting pressure on any British refugees, if such there were, to toe the line of some British party or other. Moreover, this process of Nazi organization abroad is undoubtedly becoming an obstacle in the way of British and German cordiality. Sir Walter Citrine, at the Trade Union Congress, has protested in the name of British Labor against he persecution of German refugees in England by other German visitors to our shores.

We have always been an asylum for refugees. It was only the other day that I was reading how in 1709 we gave refuge and shelter to a very large number of Germans from the Palatinate, which had been overrun by Marshal Villars with fire and sword. We could never allow foreign visitors to pursue their national feuds in the bosom of our country, still less to be organized in such a way as to affect our military security. The Germans would not tolerate it for a moment in their country, nor should they take it amiss that we do not like it in ours. I see Herr Bohle has expressed a wish to talk this over with me. I should be delighted to do so in the most friendly manner, and do anything in the power of a private member to remove this new embarrassment to Anglo-German goodwill.

I have had from time to time conversations with eminent German supporters of the present regime. When they say, as they so often do, "Will not England grasp the extended friendly hand of Germany?" nearly everyone in England will reply, "Certainly, yes. We cannot pretend to like your new institutions, and we have long freed ourselves from racial and religious intolerance. We cannot say that we admire your treatment of the Jew or of the Protestants and Catholics of Germany. We even think our methods of dealing with Communism are better than yours. But after all, these matters, so long as they are confined inside Germany, are not our business. It is our duty and our sincere desire to live in a good and neighborly fashion with so great a nation united to us by many ties of history and of race. Indeed, we will grasp the outstretched German hand."

"But," we must ask, "what happens next? Are we expected to do anything special to prove our friendship, and if so, what?" We cannot be expected to help Germany financially while she is spending nearly a thousand millions sterling a year upon her tremendous rearmament. That would be unfair to our own people. We cannot hand over colonies irrespective of the wishes of their inhabitants and of a great many other considerations. We should be very wrong if we were to give Germany a guarantee that so long as she left Britain and France alone in the West, she could do what she likes to the peoples of the center and southeast of Europe. To give such an assurance at other people's expense would not only be callous and cynical, but it might actually lead to a war the end of which no man can foresee.

To hold these opinions is not to be hostile to the German Government, and still less to the Germans as a nation. To feel deep concern about the armed power of Germany is in no way derogatory to Germany. On the contrary, it is a tribute to the wonderful and terrible strength which Germany exerted in the Great War, when almost single-handed she fought nearly all the world and nearly beat them. Naturally, when a people who have shown such magnificent military qualities are arming night and day, its neighbors, who bear the scars of previous conflicts, must be anxious and ought to be vigilant. One may dislike Hitler's system and yet admire his patriotic achievement. If our country were defeated I hope we should find a champion as indomitable to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations.

I have on more than one occasion made my appeal in public that the Fuhrer of Germany should now become the Hitler of peace. When a man is fighting in a desperate conflict he may have to grind his teeth and flash his eyes. Anger and hatred nerve the arm of strife. But success should bring a mellow, genial air and, by altering the mood to suit the new circumstances, preserve and consolidate in tolerance and goodwill what has been gained by conflict.