Winston Churchill - good guy or bad guy?

[jmorgan]

Blue One said:

So Churchill was a hero in some ways and caused ruin and destruction to get what he thought was right,,,

They started it.

[andy_s]

jmorgan said:

They started it.

Take that man's name.

[Blue One]

jmorgan said:

They started it.

By 'they' I presume you mean the Germans. In fact (as was debated on here when the BBC series '37 days' was being shown), the Kaiser halted his advance on Belgium for a few hours in 1914 when his ambassador in London said he thought Britain could stop France declaring war (and the UK also) on Germany. The Kaiser's real beef was with Russia/Serbia. Also in WW2 all the evidence seems to show Hitler wanted to co-habit with the UK rather than fight it. Although, you are right in WW2 'they' did start it, but WW1 the blame is shared with Serbia, Russia and Austria-Hungary.

Although, coincidently, as covered on a recent BBC4 programme 'Europe's soft underbelly' Churchill did for a time hope that Russia and Germany would cancel each other out and save Britain from an all-out assault on Europe facing a strong Germany. So in a way partially the same as coming to an accommodation post Dunkirk may have been.

[Gargamel]

Blue One said:

By 'they' I presume you mean the Germans. In fact (as was debated on here when the BBC series '37 days' was being shown), the Kaiser halted his advance on Belgium for a few hours in 1914 when his ambassador in London said he thought Britain could stop France declaring war (and the UK also) on Germany. The Kaiser's real beef was with Russia/Serbia. Also in WW2 all the evidence seems to show Hitler wanted to co-habit with the UK rather than fight it. Although, you are right in WW2 'they' did start it, but WW1 the blame is shared with Serbia, Russia and Austria-Hungary.

Although, coincidently, as covered on a recent BBC4 programme 'Europe's soft underbelly' Churchill did for a time hope that Russia and Germany would cancel each other out and save Britain from an all-out assault on Europe facing a strong Germany. So in a way partially the same as coming to an accommodation post Dunkirk may have been.

Of all Churchill's achievements, NOT coming to an accomodation with Hitler after Dunkirk, is surely the one we can be most proud of. Despite the deaths and horrors of what followed, to truly oppose evil, even knowing or suspecting the cost, is a fine moment for the UK. We stood alone in the early part of the war. Germany and Russia weren't fighting, the French had surrendered, the US and Japan stood apart. It was only the UK - and we were losing heavily!

Imagine now how history would treat Churchill if he had signed an non aggression pact and let Hitler complete the final solution in Europe whilst we stood by.

For whatever the cost, I for one am proud we kept fighting.

[irocfan]

Blue One said:

By 'they' I presume you mean the Germans. In fact (as was debated on here when the BBC series '37 days' was being shown), the Kaiser halted his advance on Belgium for a few hours in 1914 when his ambassador in London said he thought Britain could stop France declaring war (and the UK also) on Germany. The Kaiser's real beef was with Russia/Serbia. Also in WW2 all the evidence seems to show Hitler wanted to co-habit with the UK rather than fight it. Although, you are right in WW2 'they' did start it, but WW1 the blame is shared with Serbia, Russia and Austria-Hungary.

actually even that's not totally true - blame is also to be apportioned to Britain and France who saw an emerging Germany as a major threat to their empires and positions of power...

[Derek Smith]

E24man said:

He was perhaps the only member of the political sphere to see the danger of Hitler

The first sentence is patently wrong.

In the mid 30s the danger of fascism was apparent to most people. Some embraced it others rejected it. There was strong support for Hitler's policies in this country among the upper echelons of society and, oddly enough, for Mosley in the lower ranks. He had his supporters in the rich and influential and that was apparent in the lack of enthusiasm of many MPs. However, there was a strong political movement against him. People were well aware of the danger.

E24man said:

It is telling that when the Churchill haters on this thread are questioned who is responsible for protecting the freedom of expression they use to criticise Churchill they have no answer whatsoever.

I'm no Churchill hater but I'll correct you as to who is responsible for protecting the freedoms of this country, and that is people like my family who fought for the right to freedom of speech. My father volunteered in 1938 knowing the dangers of Hitler and fascism. He lost four brothers in WWII, and another in WWI. He narrowly missed being killed when hit in the head by shrapnel. Of his 10 sisters, everyone who was married lost a husband, and at least one more than one. My mother's family were on the convoys, and she lost a brother and a brother in law. And that's just my family. They were, according to a neighbour, bog Irish, but they sacrificed lives for free speech. So don't go suggesting that it was some MP, especially one who was a member of a group, and not, according to the others, the most helpful member. But the others didn't write too many histories.

Churchill was a bloke with all that that entails. He made lots of mistakes, and probably more than he should. The winning of the war was not all down to him, far from it.

Read the other histories of the war. Someone criticised those who rewrote history as if there was ever some specific truth that must be sacrosanct. That's not how it works.

There's a great myth around Churchill. Some of it might be spot on, I don't know, and nor do you. But my educated guess is that much of it is false.

People look for heroes, someone to look up to as someone special. Yep, Churchill is good for that. But allow others to look for as much truth as they can get rather than the rosy image of someone who was not Churchill.

[E24man]

Blue One said:

Interesting thread and topic. My observations on Churchill and the results of his actions are as follows:

- In both World Wars he was pivotal in taking Britain to war (as a hawkish member of Asquith's cabinet and as the PM after Chamberlain), although in WW2 it was more sustaining and leading the continuation of the war after it was declared.
- Britain emerged considerably weaker after both wars, millions were killed in each and the outcome was not necessarily 'good' (i.e. WW1 lead to WW2, Russia basically won the war in ww2 against Germany and was it better as a victor than Germany), although in fairness WW2 at least resulted in a free western Europe.
- We ended-up losing the empire more decisively and quickly than had we not paradoxically fought WW2 to keep it
- We emerged from WW2 to lose our place as a first world power, the £ was replaced by the $ as the world currency
- WW2 was won thanks for the US and Russia with us after 1942 being the junior partner to both

So Churchill was a hero in some ways and caused ruin and destruction to get what he thought was right,,,

You are a victim of selective reading and biased writing. Before the first WW1 shots had been fired, and up until the German declaration of War against Russia on the evening of August 1st 1914, Churchill was still hopeful of peace but German demands and impatience ran out. Churchill was not pivotal in taking Britain to War on either occasion, German action was.

Blue One said:

By 'they' I presume you mean the Germans. In fact (as was debated on here when the BBC series '37 days' was being shown), the Kaiser halted his advance on Belgium for a few hours in 1914 when his ambassador in London said he thought Britain could stop France declaring war (and the UK also) on Germany. The Kaiser's real beef was with Russia/Serbia. Also in WW2 all the evidence seems to show Hitler wanted to co-habit with the UK rather than fight it. Although, you are right in WW2 'they' did start it, but WW1 the blame is shared with Serbia, Russia and Austria-Hungary.

Although, coincidently, as covered on a recent BBC4 programme 'Europe's soft underbelly' Churchill did for a time hope that Russia and Germany would cancel each other out and save Britain from an all-out assault on Europe facing a strong Germany. So in a way partially the same as coming to an accommodation post Dunkirk may have been.

From your writing you seem to think Britain would have been correct in leaving Belgium to the Germans, despite the (then) friendship and history between the two Nations. Germany was asked repeatedly to assure the neutrality of the Belgians who had no interest in either side of the political arguments and fairly and honestly wished to remain neutral; German would not provide these assurances simply because their Generals had planned years in advance, on the Kaisers whim and say so, to invade France through Belgium.

Also, if the Kaisers 'real beef' was with Russia/Serbia then following your logic please explain why he wanted to invade France?

The Kaisers sole intent was power and the shooting in Sarajevo was just an almost meaningless footnote on which he decided he would pin his reasons for exercising his War machines in support of the Austro-Hungarians - the 'blank cheque'.

As for the 'evidence' that Hitler wanted to co-habit with Britain do you not consider that even then Mr Hitler might not have been the best person to take on his word? Hitler was in the 1930's already notorious and proven to be deeply untrustworthy on any level and yet you believe, nearly 70 years on that Britain should taken him upon his 'word' that he wanted to co-habit with Britain?

Your naivety and willingness to believe in the unbelievable might be the root cause of your frankly laughable bias.

[Halmyre]

Churchill's greatest contribution to winning WW2 was heeding the advice he was given (unlike his opposite number) and then doing what was needed to put words into action.

[JagLover]

Penelope Stopit said:

This is for all of you that obviously dont know what you are talking about and are blindly led to believe that Churchill was a good man. Here I post a very good example of the horrors that Churchill created and also include a link that is all fact about this mass murderer that was on a par with the Nazis

1943........Bengal......Up to 3 million people starved to death while British officials begged Churchill to direct food supplies to the region. He bluntly refused
Do you want more, that on its own is knocking on to the same figures as the Nazis withn the Jews

3 Million People........BAD BAD BAD

Judging any historically leader by whether they meet the PC standards of our time, or indeed based on the difficult decisions they need to make during a world war would lead to very few being judged a "good" guy.

Everyone is a product of their time and you can only judge an historical figure based on the moral standards of the time and certain fundamental "immutable" moral standards.

You will find a treasure trove of un PC remarks, but that tells us very little.

In respect to the Bengal famine in particular as far as I am aware the exact degree of culpability of the British government is disputed and in fact there were large scale distributions of food aid that were insufficient.

A large proportion of the estimated 75million+ deaths from WW2 were war related famine and disease and the largest share of the culpability should surely be with those who began the conflict in the first place.

[E24man]

Derek Smith said:

E24man said:

He was perhaps the only member of the political sphere to see the danger of Hitler

The first sentence is patently wrong.

In the mid 30s the danger of fascism was apparent to most people. Some embraced it others rejected it. There was strong support for Hitler's policies in this country among the upper echelons of society and, oddly enough, for Mosley in the lower ranks. He had his supporters in the rich and influential and that was apparent in the lack of enthusiasm of many MPs. However, there was a strong political movement against him. People were well aware of the danger.

You declare my statement 'patently wrong' then provide more reasons that it is correct than it isn't. Footnoting that 'there was strong political movement against him' is flimsy given the sentences before it. Are you sure which point you're trying to support?

Derek Smith said:

E24man said:

It is telling that when the Churchill haters on this thread are questioned who is responsible for protecting the freedom of expression they use to criticise Churchill they have no answer whatsoever.

I'm no Churchill hater but I'll correct you as to who is responsible for protecting the freedoms of this country, and that is people like my family who fought for the right to freedom of speech. My father volunteered in 1938 knowing the dangers of Hitler and fascism. He lost four brothers in WWII, and another in WWI. He narrowly missed being killed when hit in the head by shrapnel. Of his 10 sisters, everyone who was married lost a husband, and at least one more than one. My mother's family were on the convoys, and she lost a brother and a brother in law. And that's just my family. They were, according to a neighbour, bog Irish, but they sacrificed lives for free speech. So don't go suggesting that it was some MP, especially one who was a member of a group, and not, according to the others, the most helpful member. But the others didn't write too many histories.

Churchill was a bloke with all that that entails. He made lots of mistakes, and probably more than he should. The winning of the war was not all down to him, far from it.

Read the other histories of the war. Someone criticised those who rewrote history as if there was ever some specific truth that must be sacrosanct. That's not how it works.

There's a great myth around Churchill. Some of it might be spot on, I don't know, and nor do you. But my educated guess is that much of it is false.

People look for heroes, someone to look up to as someone special. Yep, Churchill is good for that. But allow others to look for as much truth as they can get rather than the rosy image of someone who was not Churchill.

As personal and heartfelt your family history with the war is, millions upon milions of families across the world can make similar statements; but all these sacrifices would have been in vain had there been no leader. The winning of World War II was, as you state, not down to him, but 'far from it'? Would anyone else have been able to do it?

Put simply, had there been no Churchill at the point of war being declared in 1939, whom do you think would have led the free world against Hitler?

Churchill's inter-war years were called the wilderness years by both himself and his opponents quite simply because he was politically on his own in uncovering the efforts Hitler was making and the diabolical plans he had in mind.

I challenge you to name another British Political Leader who was in clear support of Churchill during this period, or another Political Leader who had the broad-based military, political and diplomatic knowledge that proved completely necessary to Britain up to the end of the War in 1945?

Re-writing history is not sacrosanct but it is impossible to achieve without truthful context.

As for how many mistakes Churchill made - tot them up if you wish and weigh them up as you see fit but I would again suggest, that without Churchill in position in 1939, the world would be a vastly different place and none of us would be as likely to be in a position to voice our thoughts quite as freely as we can today.

[anonymous-user]

Penelope Stopit said:

Rude-boy said:

Mothersruin said:

Both.

Complex chap.

First answer was the right answer.

Without a leader like Churchill we would have lost the war.

Without leaders like Churchill there may not have been any wars.

Very complex, very much a man of his time and not a moment longer.

Personally I still find it hard to believe that the Admiralty stopped him trying to reopen the Dardanelles and hung him out to dry over it. History tells us that the Turks had run out of mines and were on the brink of capitulation. It is not an exaggeration to say that if the Admiralty had given Churchill another 24 hours millions of lives would have been saved.

And what about the millions of lives he terminated?
Oh sorry you are another one that doesnt know the truth

Which War Time leader has not had to sacrifice millions of lives, rightly or wrongly?

Was it better to let India starve to secure the future of a non-Nazi Europe?

Should we have capitulated post Dunkirk?

All what if questions, that we cannot answer.

Churchill was a product of the time, todays ridiculous P.C. world doesn't look favourably upon him.

Its all well and good, in hindsight to ridicule his decisions and the barbarian nature of them, if you were in a similar situation how would you react?

On the one hand lead millions of people to their potential death, on the other condemn hundreds of thousands to certain death? You simply cannot apply todays 'standards' to a historical figure!

A good man, a complex man and in my opinion did what he thought was best for both himself and the U.K., and we are not speaking German now are we.

[Gargamel]

JagLover said:

Penelope Stopit said:

This is for all of you that obviously dont know what you are talking about and are blindly led to believe that Churchill was a good man. Here I post a very good example of the horrors that Churchill created and also include a link that is all fact about this mass murderer that was on a par with the Nazis

1943........Bengal......Up to 3 million people starved to death while British officials begged Churchill to direct food supplies to the region. He bluntly refused
Do you want more, that on its own is knocking on to the same figures as the Nazis withn the Jews

3 Million People........BAD BAD BAD

Judging any historically leader by whether they meet the PC standards of our time, or indeed based on the difficult decisions they need to make during a world war would lead to very few being judged a "good" guy.

Everyone is a product of their time and you can only judge an historical figure based on the moral standards of the time and certain fundamental "immutable" moral standards.

You will find a treasure trove of un PC remarks, but that tells us very little.

In respect to the Bengal famine in particular as far as I am aware the exact degree of culpability of the British government is disputed and in fact there were large scale distributions of food aid that were insufficient.

A large proportion of the estimated 75million+ deaths from WW2 were war related famine and disease and the largest share of the culpability should surely be with those who began the conflict in the first place.

Indeed of the 3m then Pen quotes, it is widely estimated that 1.5m died from diseases after food distribution was solved. Of course arguably they would be stronger had they been fed, but then look how many died from Flu in Europe post WW1, yet no one attributes those deaths to Kaiser Bill or Lloyd George.

[JagLover]

Blue One said:

Interesting thread and topic. My observations on Churchill and the results of his actions are as follows:

- In both World Wars he was pivotal in taking Britain to war (as a hawkish member of Asquith's cabinet and as the PM after Chamberlain), although in WW2 it was more sustaining and leading the continuation of the war after it was declared.
- Britain emerged considerably weaker after both wars, millions were killed in each and the outcome was not necessarily 'good' (i.e. WW1 lead to WW2, Russia basically won the war in ww2 against Germany and was it better as a victor than Germany), although in fairness WW2 at least resulted in a free western Europe.
- We ended-up losing the empire more decisively and quickly than had we not paradoxically fought WW2 to keep it
- We emerged from WW2 to lose our place as a first world power, the £ was replaced by the $ as the world currency
- WW2 was won thanks for the US and Russia with us after 1942 being the junior partner to both

So Churchill was a hero in some ways and caused ruin and destruction to get what he thought was right,,,

The years 1914-1945 were an attempt by Germany to dominate Europe with a twenty year truce in the middle. Marshall Foch recognised that and Churchill came to realise that well before any other significant British political figure.

It is not "warmongering" to recognise reality and if more had recognised the reality of the situation than tens of millions would not have died.

The true failure was by the western politicians who failed to rearm in time. The resources of even France & the British empire standing alone were considerable greater than that of Nazi Germany in 1940. The reason why the Germans won so easily were not only that they outmanoeuvred their opponents but that they had "got the jump on us" by rearming a few years earlier.

But yes the rest of your post is correct. The world wars did indeed destroy the British empire as a world power and, if you abandon the anglo-centric view of the war, the least significant front was the western front and we were the junior partner in that theatre.

Churchill's true significance was in fighting alone in 1940. 1941 was the decisive year of the war and without the diversion of a part of German air power and army to meet any threats from Britain then the outcome in that year may have been different enough to change the eventual outcome.

Edited by JagLover on Tuesday 27th September 13:44

[Digga]

andy_s said:

jmorgan said:

They started it.

Take that man's name.

Don't tell him Pike!

[jmorgan]

Gargamel said:

Blue One said:

By 'they' I presume you mean the Germans. In fact (as was debated on here when the BBC series '37 days' was being shown), the Kaiser halted his advance on Belgium for a few hours in 1914 when his ambassador in London said he thought Britain could stop France declaring war (and the UK also) on Germany. The Kaiser's real beef was with Russia/Serbia. Also in WW2 all the evidence seems to show Hitler wanted to co-habit with the UK rather than fight it. Although, you are right in WW2 'they' did start it, but WW1 the blame is shared with Serbia, Russia and Austria-Hungary.

Although, coincidently, as covered on a recent BBC4 programme 'Europe's soft underbelly' Churchill did for a time hope that Russia and Germany would cancel each other out and save Britain from an all-out assault on Europe facing a strong Germany. So in a way partially the same as coming to an accommodation post Dunkirk may have been.

Of all Churchill's achievements, NOT coming to an accomodation with Hitler after Dunkirk, is surely the one we can be most proud of. Despite the deaths and horrors of what followed, to truly oppose evil, even knowing or suspecting the cost, is a fine moment for the UK. We stood alone in the early part of the war. Germany and Russia weren't fighting, the French had surrendered, the US and Japan stood apart. It was only the UK - and we were losing heavily!

Imagine now how history would treat Churchill if he had signed an non aggression pact and let Hitler complete the final solution in Europe whilst we stood by.

For whatever the cost, I for one am proud we kept fighting.

Hitler was deluded, he expected us to do one thing but was well prepared to take us on if we did not and is on record for saying so. Our options were too standby and watch the rape of Europe and mass genocide and two belligerent leaders fight it out and then the winner come our way or we got involved early on. There really was no option.

[Penelope Stopit]

The OP asks - Winston Churchill - good guy or bad guy?
The OP doesnt ask - Winston Churchill - good leader or bad leader?
How is it that so many posters to this thread do not see the error in their ways, they dont understand the OP's simple question
The mind boggles

[WinstonWolf]

Penelope Stopit said:

The OP asks - Winston Churchill - good guy or bad guy?
The OP doesnt ask - Winston Churchill - good leader or bad leader?
How is it that so many posters to this thread do not see the error in their ways, they dont understand the OP's simple question
The mind boggles

Did you mean to say


Der OP fragt - Winston Churchill - guter Kerl oder Bösewicht?
Das OP tut fragen - Winston Churchill - guter Führer oder schlechte Führer?
Wie kommt es, dass so viele Plakate auf diesen Thread den Fehler nicht auf ihren Wegen zu sehen, die sie nicht die einfache Frage des OP verstehen
Die grauen Zellen anstrengen

[Derek Smith]

E24man said:

As personal and heartfelt your family history with the war is, millions upon milions of families across the world can make similar statements; but all these sacrifices would have been in vain had there been no leader. The winning of World War II was, as you state, not down to him, but 'far from it'? Would anyone else have been able to do it?

Put simply, had there been no Churchill at the point of war being declared in 1939, whom do you think would have led the free world against Hitler?

Churchill's inter-war years were called the wilderness years by both himself and his opponents quite simply because he was politically on his own in uncovering the efforts Hitler was making and the diabolical plans he had in mind.

I challenge you to name another British Political Leader who was in clear support of Churchill during this period, or another Political Leader who had the broad-based military, political and diplomatic knowledge that proved completely necessary to Britain up to the end of the War in 1945?

Re-writing history is not sacrosanct but it is impossible to achieve without truthful context.

As for how many mistakes Churchill made - tot them up if you wish and weigh them up as you see fit but I would again suggest, that without Churchill in position in 1939, the world would be a vastly different place and none of us would be as likely to be in a position to voice our thoughts quite as freely as we can today.

The way Churchill ran the war was not the only way to run the war successfully. Had he not been put into the position of head of the war cabinet then someone else would have taken his place.

He had a fairly easy time from his war cabinet with remarkably few disagreements, and those that did occur he often, but not always, got his way. Not to support Churchill completely was not necessarily not to support the way the war went.

What if things went differently for the UK. What would have happened then? We don't know of course but given that the USA and the USSR, especially the latter, caused the destruction of Germany then I'd suggest that Germany would still have been defeated.

Some have suggested that Churchill's motivation was to help the Jews. I'm not sure the evidence supports that.

You seem to be suggesting that he took the country to war without information and support from advisors. Indeed it does seem that he went against advice on a number of occasions and not always successfully. He had no experience of modern warfare and this showed.

You ask would anyone else been able to do it. The point is they did. Most histories suggest that the role of the cabinet was downplayed after the war. There seems to be little doubt that some of those in it were inspired leaders but didn't get to write the history afterwards. Indeed most didn't even seem to want to try, victory was enough.

Ernie Bevin, Beaverbrook, Atlee, Morrison, all remarkable men for different reasons. The first was quietly but forcefully anti fascist and anti communist. He was, patently given his previous, a great leader. He wasn't in favour of being taken over by Germany. He made a great speech condemning appeasement, that was before Chamberlain's bit of paper, but he didn't write the history so is ignored. He could have been a great leader. We won't ever know.

The tories were largely sympathetic to Franco and it was labour, with the likes of Bevin, who were forcefully anti fascist and probably led to him being in the cabinet. Bevan however, despite his similar CV and sympathies, was not asked.

Just because the war was won following certain decisions does not mean they were the only ones that would have given that result. More to the point, it doesn't mean that better ones could not have been made. My family were adamant that more resources should have been given to long range aerial escorts for the convoys, a belief shared by some historians.

I don't think informed criticism hurts any politician. Churchill was an odd bloke, but he was in charge during the war and ran an effective campaign. However, he was not unique. If everyone in parliament wanted to throw in the towel and ask Hitler for tea then it begs the question as to why they promoted him.

[Smollet]

Right person for the job in standing up to the Nazis. No one else had managed it until he did. He bought the country together and was instrumental in Hitler's demise and tbh that's all that interests me in the man. I'm not bothered that he may or not have been altruistic to everyone else in the world. To judge him on today's values is pointless.

[Penelope Stopit]

Smollet said:

Right person for the job in standing up to the Nazis. No one else had managed it until he did. He bought the country together and was instrumental in Hitler's demise and tbh that's all that interests me in the man. I'm not bothered that he may or not have been altruistic to everyone else in the world. To judge him on today's values is pointless.

Although off-topic
This is not true, Churchill was not instrumental in Hitler's demise
Russia is the country that won WW11