Winston Churchill - good guy or bad guy?

[Gargamel]

Penelope Stopit said:

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

Hmm - think America might disagree, but anyway - to the point, Stalin sat out the first two years of the war, they only got dragged in by Hitler attacking them.

So whilst no one doubts the enormous contribution to defeating Hitler made by Russia - let be clear, they didn't initially want any part of it.

[Smollet]

Penelope Stopit said:

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

Could we have defeated Hitler on our own without Russia and the USA I very much doubt it but we held him at bay for two years before the rest joined in so I'd say on that basis Churchill was pretty instrumental in his downfall.

[Derek Smith]

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.

Bevin's speech in the labour party conference in 1935, in which he takes a stance against appeasement to fascism is not easily found on the internet. But then, he didn't write the histories. All I can find is a bit in Wiki quote:

It is placing the Executive and the Movement in an absolutely wrong position to be taking your conscience round from body to body asking to be told what you ought to do with it.

Speech to the Labour Party conference, 1 October 1935, criticising George Lansbury. Lansbury, a pacifist, was publicly agonising about the need to confront fascist Italy over Abyssinia; Bevin's speech convinced the conference to back sanctions, and when the vote went against him, Lansbury resigned as Leader of the Labour Party.

Far from Churchill being a lone voice in the wilderness, the anti fascist MPs were numerous. The labour movement was, it seems, of the same mind.

He did not decide, the war cabinet did.

As for not judging him on today's standards, I would agree on matters such as sexism and such but not for casualness towards the deaths of others. By the standards of the time, some of his decisions were plain wrong.

That does not mean, of course, that he didn't do a good job. He should be praised for that, but not beatified.

[Rude-boy]

ClaphamGT3 said:

Albeit Cunningham and Sommerville were within hours of negotiating the surrender of the French force when Churchill sent his infamous "settle matters quickly" signal

I am afraid that I am one of the few who has little sympathy for the French Fleet.

They did what they were told not to do and then did not do what they were told to do. Sorry this is war and you are a very weak force in charge and control of a very powerful weapon hand it over or see it destroyed.

Oh how we would have laughed if the Germans had got their hands on those boats.

[DMN]

Derek Smith said:

Just because the war was won following certain decisions does not mean they were the only ones that would have given that result.

That in a nutshell. Churchill spent the first half of the war trying to recreate his Gallipoli mistake due to his obsession with Europes "soft under belly". With obvious outcomes in both Greece and Crete; men and material wasted for no benefit. He was a good wartime leader, when he left the war to the generals.

[Penelope Stopit]

Derek Smith said:

Bevin's speech in the labour party conference in 1935, in which he takes a stance against appeasement to fascism is not easily found on the internet. But then, he didn't write the histories. All I can find is a bit in Wiki quote:

It is placing the Executive and the Movement in an absolutely wrong position to be taking your conscience round from body to body asking to be told what you ought to do with it.

Speech to the Labour Party conference, 1 October 1935, criticising George Lansbury. Lansbury, a pacifist, was publicly agonising about the need to confront fascist Italy over Abyssinia; Bevin's speech convinced the conference to back sanctions, and when the vote went against him, Lansbury resigned as Leader of the Labour Party.

Far from Churchill being a lone voice in the wilderness, the anti fascist MPs were numerous. The labour movement was, it seems, of the same mind.

He did not decide, the war cabinet did.

As for not judging him on today's standards, I would agree on matters such as sexism and such but not for casualness towards the deaths of others. By the standards of the time, some of his decisions were plain wrong.

That does not mean, of course, that he didn't do a good job. He should be praised for that, but not beatified.

Good post this one, there is a big difference between a good leader and a good man

[matsoc]

WinstonWolf said:

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

I don't get the point of repeating this in German but anyway the translation has some mistakes, Google translate and the likes are still pretty poor in German.

[E24man]

Derek Smith said:

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.

As you have previously mentioned, Churchill wasn't alone in his anti-facist stance but was still pretty much alone in recognising Hitler for what he was to become; to most of the British Political sphere Hitler was not a monster or likely to ever trouble us through the 1930's.

I wasn't inferring and haven't stated that Churchill 'took the country to War without information and support from advisors'; I stated that he led, and it was his Leadership that was perhaps unique in this situation. The other Politicians you have mentioned would, IMHO, foundered in the circumstances and pressures of War - you also state he had 'no experience of modern warfare and it showed' but over the suggestions you offered as potential other leaders he at least had some experience of any warfare - you can't use both arguments to round your case.

The aerial escorts you mention are a singular case in point of the whole revisionist analysis provided by many on this discussion; you have presented no perspective.

Where would you take the planes from to provide more air-cover? What pilots would you use? Where would they come from? What theatre of War do you ignore to keep air cover over the conveys? Are you willing to lose North Africa, the Middle East and perhaps the Mediterranean with all the vital resources and strategic importance to protect the thin line of Conveys across the Atlantic?

It is exactly this type of singular revisionist criticism that paints a warped picture - be honest and true if you want to criticise his Convoy decisions by stating what you would have relinquished and what you think the knock-on effects of that might be?

As Leader the buck stopped with him; he had the support and information from some of the best minds in the warfare business but quite often they could not agree on the priority at that point in time with the information and situation at hand, so one Leader would have to.

Yes, the War could have been run in different ways but no-one could say it could have been done any better simply because there were too many variables. Would the War still have been successful? Who knows? But would any of the different Leaders you suggested have such charm, diplomatic skills, experience, insight, foresight, arrogance, self-belief and dogged bloody-minded determination to succeed at so many low ebbs?

Penelope Stopit said:

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

Oh dear.

Derek Smith said:

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.

This is the big 'what if', and again I can't agree with your thoughts I'm afraid.

If GB had folded before US involvement then all of Western Europe would have fallen completely.

The British Empire as it stood would have immediately ceased and with it any support from or to GB. Each of the Countries of the Empire would have a sudden vacuum of power which would have been, I suspect, carnage on an unbelievable scale.

Hitler would still want Oil and power and would ignore any designs on the USA in favour of a lengthy prosecution of Russia. His home support would have been buoyed by GB's collapse.

The USA may or may not have entered into War with Japan depending on whether they still attacked Pearl Harbour; North American Politics in the inter-war years had a strong sense of isolationism and with the Pacific and the Atlantic to defend they could well have armed up in a defensive posture without prosecuting any attacks beyond their borders.

Japan and Germany as Allies? Maybe, maybe not, in the end probably not but an uneasy detente across the newly independent and crumbling states of Central Asia.

Would Russia fall? It never has done so probably not but without anyone to support her, the Country would in all likelihood become a poverty-stricken wasteland occasionally plundered by the Third Reich every Summer after the thaws.

Either way, perhaps the Third Reich would have had its thousand years in the Sun and the purity of its blood would be stamped across all of Europe and perhaps a quarter of the World while across on the Pacific Rim the Japanese would use the fanatical belief in their Right and their Emperor to conquer and supress all of Asia and use its volcanic stepping stones, unheeded by British Empire or the USA, to drop into Australia.

America would be isolated, probably happily so, but undoubtedly nervous of from which direction a threat might come from....

[Penelope Stopit]

Gargamel said:

Penelope Stopit said:

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

Hmm - think America might disagree, but anyway - to the point, Stalin sat out the first two years of the war, they only got dragged in by Hitler attacking them.

So whilst no one doubts the enormous contribution to defeating Hitler made by Russia - let be clear, they didn't initially want any part of it.

Check out the records

[WinstonWolf]

matsoc said:

WinstonWolf said:

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

I don't get the point of repeating this in German but anyway the translation has some mistakes, Google translate and the likes are still pretty poor in German.

We'd all be a lot more fluent in it without Churchill...

[jmorgan]

Penelope Stopit said:

Gargamel said:

Penelope Stopit said:

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

Hmm - think America might disagree, but anyway - to the point, Stalin sat out the first two years of the war, they only got dragged in by Hitler attacking them.

So whilst no one doubts the enormous contribution to defeating Hitler made by Russia - let be clear, they didn't initially want any part of it.

Check out the records

Russia was kept helped to keep afloat by the US for a time. The amount of supplies is listed, and would have helped the Russians. But then no on is saying Churchill was solely responsible for the H mans down fall. The US was a massive manufacturing base the axis were never going to defeat. The USSr was a massive man power base, Stalin was one right nasty git and perhaps the one to take on the eastern front but singularly, none on them could do it? Could Stalin Have won with the UK and hence US manufacturing out of the question?

But not forgetting Stalin felt grieved at the back stab from Hitler despite planning the same himself.

[JagLover]

Penelope Stopit said:

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

That is quite correct in terms of casualty figures on the various fronts but ignores the "what if" Britain has sued for peace in 1940 after the fall of France and Germany would not only have had unhindered supplies of raw materials from the rest of the world but have been able to concentrate more force against the Soviet Union in 1941.

One interesting fact about Barbarossa is that the Germans actually had two hundred fewer bombers in June 1941 than they had at the start of the Battle of France 13 months earlier. The difference due to the fact that aircraft production had not kept pace with losses.

[Halb]

Penelope Stopit said:

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

The Soviet Union certainly deserve the largest credit for the final win, they soaked up the vast war engine of NAZI Germany. Having said that, that in itself was only possible because Germany was preoccupied with Britain, and even after Germany went East, it was the contribution of Churchill who pushed through aid to the USSR to help them stay in the war, otherwise the Soviets would have folded like a stack of cards very early.

[E24man]

The Russians solution to soaking up any aggressors war effort has always been a policy of keep backing up 50 miles; there is an awful lot of 50 miles across Mother Russia.

[Penelope Stopit]

E24man said:

The Russians solution to soaking up any aggressors war effort has always been a policy of keep backing up 50 miles; there is an awful lot of 50 miles across Mother Russia.

Off-topic
Yes and it was many 50 mile journeys back that the Nazis couldnt reach and it was there that the Russians built their military machine

[JagLover]

Halb said:

The Soviet Union certainly deserve the largest credit for the final win, they soaked up the vast war engine of NAZI Germany. Having said that, that in itself was only possible because Germany was preoccupied with Britain, and even after Germany went East, it was the contribution of Churchill who pushed through aid to the USSR to help them stay in the war, otherwise the Soviets would have folded like a stack of cards very early.

Important not to indulge in hyperbole here.

British aid was IMPORTANT in the Moscow counter-offensive and in the battles of 1942, it did not prevent them "folding like a stack of cards". The first German contact with British made tanks on the Eastern front did not occur until November 26th by which date German hopes of victory in 1941 (and perhaps in the whole war) were gone.

http://www.historynet.com/did-russia-really-go-it-...

[Smollet]

E24man said:

The Russians solution to soaking up any aggressors war effort has always been a policy of keep backing up 50 miles; there is an awful lot of 50 miles across Mother Russia.

And then wait for winter.

[pim]

Dresden is a example of madness when the war was already decided.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Good or bad? The victor has the spoils and has to live with it.

[Rude-boy]

pim said:

Dresden is a example of madness when the war was already decided.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Good or bad? The victor has the spoils and has to live with it.

Hiroshima to would disagree on.

Nagasaki and Dresden are looked on with sorrowful eyes in the light of 70 years uneasy world peace.

Question. You are fighting a bear in the woods. You have both suffered near mortal wounds and the bear is on it's back, struggling to get up. You can see a rock you know that you can lift and bring crashing down on the bear's head before it can recover the strength to raise from the ground. Do you try to make a run for it?

FWIW Whilst the brutality of man is offensive to C21 sensibilities, and history can be re written at will, the stupidity of those who believe we are anything but animals baffles me.

[nikaiyo2]

Penelope Stopit said:

Bengal happened, it is much easier for me to post a link than type for an hour

Are you denying what Churchill got up to?

Educate yourself

Do bear in mind that what happened in Bengal is only one example of Churchill being the bad man

How do you feel about Bhai Permanand? Arguably the person who actually caused the Bengal famine of 1943.