Winston Churchill - good guy or bad guy?
Poll: Winston Churchill - good guy or bad guy?
Total Members Polled: 386
Discussion
But bad humour aside, these last 8 pages have shown how hard it is to form an opinion of someone based on actions taken between 70-100 years ago using a modern lense.
Some of the articles posted earlier appear to criticise Churchill as if he personally constructed world events to turn out that way.
I don't doubt the British Empire was a lot nastier than the BBC period dramas would have you believe, but I won't be convinced that other Empires of the time (or before) were any better.
There seems to be a great passion in Britain of kicking our historical figures: do you see the Chinese agonising about the millions of deaths caused by their socialist movements in the 50s? Or the Mogolians agonising in web blogs about the awful things Genghis got up to?
No.
So a bit more objectivity would be good, as well as apprecating that the world (and therefore politicans) was not able to hold life as highly valued as we do today.
If I may follow Derek and give a brief family insight: my gran was born around the turn of the 20th centuary was one of eight: four died before adulthood. One brother suffered brain damage at birth, and spent his 20 or so years strapped with thick leather belts to a heavy wooden chair. That was the best care available to him.
Nowadays, there would be a phalanx of social workers, special education placements, doctors, consultants etc. to safeguard his wellbeing. In the 1920 and 1930s, there was a wooden chair with leather straps on.
Does that make them "bad"? Can I really fill the internet up with bile about this treatment? What's the point. It was a product of the realities of the time.
It's the same with Winston. I don't believe many of the accusations levelled at him were done becase he was "evil" or "bad" - he was playing the cards he was dealt, in what was the prevailing political system of the time.
I will say also this thread has given me a lot more perspective on this period of history, and I've found it an interesting read, as is occasionally the case on here.
Ian
Some of the articles posted earlier appear to criticise Churchill as if he personally constructed world events to turn out that way.
I don't doubt the British Empire was a lot nastier than the BBC period dramas would have you believe, but I won't be convinced that other Empires of the time (or before) were any better.
There seems to be a great passion in Britain of kicking our historical figures: do you see the Chinese agonising about the millions of deaths caused by their socialist movements in the 50s? Or the Mogolians agonising in web blogs about the awful things Genghis got up to?
No.
So a bit more objectivity would be good, as well as apprecating that the world (and therefore politicans) was not able to hold life as highly valued as we do today.
If I may follow Derek and give a brief family insight: my gran was born around the turn of the 20th centuary was one of eight: four died before adulthood. One brother suffered brain damage at birth, and spent his 20 or so years strapped with thick leather belts to a heavy wooden chair. That was the best care available to him.
Nowadays, there would be a phalanx of social workers, special education placements, doctors, consultants etc. to safeguard his wellbeing. In the 1920 and 1930s, there was a wooden chair with leather straps on.
Does that make them "bad"? Can I really fill the internet up with bile about this treatment? What's the point. It was a product of the realities of the time.
It's the same with Winston. I don't believe many of the accusations levelled at him were done becase he was "evil" or "bad" - he was playing the cards he was dealt, in what was the prevailing political system of the time.
I will say also this thread has given me a lot more perspective on this period of history, and I've found it an interesting read, as is occasionally the case on here.
Ian
JagLover said:
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-...
Everything is connected. It's not just about numbers and tanks. Churchill batted heavy for the soviets in the early days, a little to the chagrin of the US, he shared secrets, it all went towards strengthening those bonds with STalin. It';s not just about physical help. Most of the UK establishment wanted a war with the USSR, the USA would have been happier with that. Eventually the dynamic changed, and Vhurchill was frozen out as the realities of power settled on the US leadership. The Sovet mindset was close to folding like a stack of cards in the early days, certain things happened that helped to prevent this, Churchill's tireless work and the non-agression pact with the Russians largest threat. Also the war aaginst Britain and the NAZIs choosing the wrong of three stratagems. It's all connected, it was close, because STalin was expected to leave Moscow at one point.
ClaphamGT3 said:
Albeit Cunningham and Somerville were within hours of negotiating the surrender of the French force when Churchill sent his infamous "settle matters quickly" signal
The full signal read "Settle matters quickly or you will have reinforcements to deal with". The Admiralty had intercepted French signals ordering their fleet to raise steam and proceed to Oran to assist - the first reinforcements were expected during the night.At the same time Somerville also had to act within the limited remaining daylight, accurate fire control being crucial in proximity to land.
It's one of those situations where they simply could not wait any longer.
Halb 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
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.This is not true, Churchill was not instrumental in Hitler's demise
Russia is the country that won WW11
SPS said:
I think you will find that they did fold like a stack of cards. Mainly through the stupidity of Stalin in killing off most of his competent generals and also for not believing his own spy network including the amazing Lucy Spy Ring based in Switzerland about the impending Operation Barbarossa. If he had not been able to trade massive amounts of territory and had the winter not come early the USSR's armies would have been pushed back to or past the Urals with no hope of launching any meaningful offensives as they would then have not had the industrial or logistical capacity. He would then have had to sue for peace and Hitler would have revisited the vexing little problem in the West - the UK.
There was an expectation that the Russians would collapse in 1941, the Germans expected it and so did the British and Americans.In fact despite being taken by surprise, fighting with outdated organisation and doctrines, and losing most of their mechanised forces in the early weeks of the war they fought fiercely throughout 1941.
Anyone who thinks the fighting before Operation Typhoon (the start of the battle of Moscow) was a cakewalk for the Germans should read "war without Garlands" the German perspective on Barborossa or "Barborossa" by David Glantz (who is the current expert on the Russian military).
The Germans had already lost over 1/2 million casualties by 30 September, concentrated in their elite fighting formations. It was logistical difficulties and autumn mud that brought their advance to a halt, combined with attrition in their armoured spearheads.
In terms of being taken by surprise itself it is more that they were taken by surprise by the timing. They had been mobilising for war throughout 1941, but Stalin wanted to avoid provoking Hitler in any way.
Gargamel said:
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.
The general point I was trying to make is that Churchill seemed to have a penchant for war with Germany, no matter the cost. Looking at the balance sheet of both world wars, would we have overall been better off with a Europe dominated by a 'slightly' benign imperial Germany instead of fighting WW1, or suffer the 16 million dead of that war (and the 55 million of WW2, which it is generally accepted came about as a result of the badly handled end of WW1?).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.
In terms of just ww2 alone, was siding with Russia worse than some accommodation with Germany (which would have been weakened by a war with Russia anyway) and what did we get, well a world dominated by the atomic bomb, half of Europe controlled by a communist totalitarian state for 50 years and numerous wars and global instability. In other words, whilst not advocating passivism, both world wars came at a terrible cost and, as Harrison's book 'Fatherland' showed, the Nazi regime would have run its course like the Russian one did.
Going well off topic, but one of our problems in the UK is that because WW2 was so disastrous for us, we spent most of the post-war period being conditioned by films and received wisdom that we had achieved a glorious victory over the Hun, and our plucky lads and lasses had done this almost singlehandedly with some help from Steve McQueen and a few Canadians. What we weren't taught is how the war bankrupted us, how good the German army really was compared to the allied armies (esp. the British most of the time), and how it was the Russians (as has already been said on this thread) that really bled the Germans of their resources and manpower, and it was the Americans who lent us cash and floated us to carry on fighting (and screwed us in the process).
Point being? Well we can say we were brave to fight both world wars (which we were) and that Churchill was a great war leader (which he was), but we can also say he was pivotal in pushing us into both world wars at a terrible cost, but can we say with any certainty that the outcomes of both weren't necessarily better than an accommodation on the longer-term?
PS: someone will raise the issue that the Nazis were EVIL, well of course they were, the Holocaust will go down in history for ever as being the zenith of human depravity, but Stalin killed more people than Hitler in camps and persecutions, he just didn't have the psychopathic hatred for one group the Germans did, he just killed 'people'. Take your pick.
Edited by Blue One on Wednesday 28th September 08:31
Edited by Blue One on Wednesday 28th September 08:32
Edited by Blue One on Wednesday 28th September 08:33
When I was young a big influence on my life was my Granddad, he was present as a boy when the troops opened fire in Tonapandy, but he acknowledged Churchill as a man of his time, and I remember watching Churchill funeral with my grandparent with respect we need top look at the big picture without to much hindsight. Dresden, Coventry, The French Fleet, Tonapandy were low points, but we would not be what we are without him.
Blue One said:
The general point I was trying to make is that Churchill seemed to have a penchant for war with Germany, no matter the cost. Looking at the balance sheet of both world wars, would we have overall been better off with a Europe dominated by a 'slightly' benign imperial Germany instead of fighting WW1, or suffer the 16 million dead of that war (and the 55 million of WW2, which it is generally accepted came about as a result of the badly handled end of WW1?).
In terms of just ww2 alone, was siding with Russia worse than some accommodation with Germany (which would have been weakened by a war with Russia anyway) and what did we get, well a world dominated by the atomic bomb, half of Europe controlled by a communist totalitarian state for 50 years and numerous wars and global instability. In other words, whilst not advocating passivism, both world wars came at a terrible cost and, as Harrison's book 'Fatherland' showed, the Nazi regime would have run its course like the Russian one did.
Going well off topic, but one of our problems in the UK is that because WW2 was so disastrous for us, we spent most of the post-war period being conditioned by films and received wisdom that we had achieved a glorious victory over the Hun, and our plucky lads and lasses had done this almost singlehandedly with some help from Steve McQueen and a few Canadians. What we weren't taught is how the war bankrupted us, how good the German army really was compared to the allied armies (esp. the British most of the time), and how it was the Russians (as has already been said on this thread) that really bled the Germans of their resources and manpower, and it was the Americans who lent us cash and floated us to carry on fighting (and screwed us in the process).
Point being? Well we can say we were brave to fight both world wars (which we were) and that Churchill was a great war leader (which he was), but we can also say he was pivotal in pushing us into both world wars at a terrible cost, but can we say with any certainty that the outcomes of both weren't necessarily better than an accommodation on the longer-term?
PS: someone will raise the issue that the Nazis were EVIL, well of course they were, the Holocaust will go down in history for ever as being the zenith of human depravity, but Stalin killed more people than Hitler in camps and persecutions, he just didn't have the psychopathic hatred for one group the Germans did, he just killed 'people'. Take your pick.
Even though you've edited this at least three times I can't believe that you believe it?In terms of just ww2 alone, was siding with Russia worse than some accommodation with Germany (which would have been weakened by a war with Russia anyway) and what did we get, well a world dominated by the atomic bomb, half of Europe controlled by a communist totalitarian state for 50 years and numerous wars and global instability. In other words, whilst not advocating passivism, both world wars came at a terrible cost and, as Harrison's book 'Fatherland' showed, the Nazi regime would have run its course like the Russian one did.
Going well off topic, but one of our problems in the UK is that because WW2 was so disastrous for us, we spent most of the post-war period being conditioned by films and received wisdom that we had achieved a glorious victory over the Hun, and our plucky lads and lasses had done this almost singlehandedly with some help from Steve McQueen and a few Canadians. What we weren't taught is how the war bankrupted us, how good the German army really was compared to the allied armies (esp. the British most of the time), and how it was the Russians (as has already been said on this thread) that really bled the Germans of their resources and manpower, and it was the Americans who lent us cash and floated us to carry on fighting (and screwed us in the process).
Point being? Well we can say we were brave to fight both world wars (which we were) and that Churchill was a great war leader (which he was), but we can also say he was pivotal in pushing us into both world wars at a terrible cost, but can we say with any certainty that the outcomes of both weren't necessarily better than an accommodation on the longer-term?
PS: someone will raise the issue that the Nazis were EVIL, well of course they were, the Holocaust will go down in history for ever as being the zenith of human depravity, but Stalin killed more people than Hitler in camps and persecutions, he just didn't have the psychopathic hatred for one group the Germans did, he just killed 'people'. Take your pick.
Edited by Blue One on Wednesday 28th September 08:31
Edited by Blue One on Wednesday 28th September 08:32
Edited by Blue One on Wednesday 28th September 08:33
Churchill didn't have a penchant for with the Germans, he worked day and night to find a peaceful solution prior to WW1 until the night Germany declared war on Russia and still tried to get Belgiums neutrality protected after that.
For WW2 there was no penchant for war from Churchill, Hitler made sure war was coming and there was no avoiding it.
He wasn't pivotal in starting or getting us into either war, he just happened, along with millions of others to be there.
Your completely empty argument about the cost of both World Wars and proposition that we might have been better off with a 'benign' Germany misses one gigantic point - Nazi Germany wasn't benign. It was murderous, poisonous, fanatical and overwhelmed almost all of Europe; your clearly passifist tone is almost denial in tone about the atrocities the Nazi's commited all over the sphere of their control.
Arguing that Nazi Germany could have been 'benign' is perhaps the most idiotic and stupid comment yet on this thread and there is stiff competition.
Whether under Nazi control or Stalinist control, the future of any of it's peoples was down to pure chance, luck and the flip of a coin or the twitch of a thumb, and that was just its supporters, let alone its enemies. Your entire piece seems to present that as a better option than fighting for your freedom?
I'm not sure what kind of a person you are away from a forum but on here you are representing yourself as a spineless apologist and in firm denial of the true horrors that our forebears all had no choice but to stand up and fight against in both world wars.
Show your posts on here to your family and see what they make of their meek, spineless, denial tone.
For your information and to help you better form opinions, 'Fatherland' is a work of fiction whereas the battlefields of Flanders, the beaches of Northern France and the death camps liberally spread across eastern Europe are real and truthful reminders of the subject at hand.
E24man said:
Blue One said:
The general point I was trying to make is that Churchill seemed to have a penchant for war with Germany, no matter the cost. Looking at the balance sheet of both world wars, would we have overall been better off with a Europe dominated by a 'slightly' benign imperial Germany instead of fighting WW1, or suffer the 16 million dead of that war (and the 55 million of WW2, which it is generally accepted came about as a result of the badly handled end of WW1?).
In terms of just ww2 alone, was siding with Russia worse than some accommodation with Germany (which would have been weakened by a war with Russia anyway) and what did we get, well a world dominated by the atomic bomb, half of Europe controlled by a communist totalitarian state for 50 years and numerous wars and global instability. In other words, whilst not advocating passivism, both world wars came at a terrible cost and, as Harrison's book 'Fatherland' showed, the Nazi regime would have run its course like the Russian one did.
Going well off topic, but one of our problems in the UK is that because WW2 was so disastrous for us, we spent most of the post-war period being conditioned by films and received wisdom that we had achieved a glorious victory over the Hun, and our plucky lads and lasses had done this almost singlehandedly with some help from Steve McQueen and a few Canadians. What we weren't taught is how the war bankrupted us, how good the German army really was compared to the allied armies (esp. the British most of the time), and how it was the Russians (as has already been said on this thread) that really bled the Germans of their resources and manpower, and it was the Americans who lent us cash and floated us to carry on fighting (and screwed us in the process).
Point being? Well we can say we were brave to fight both world wars (which we were) and that Churchill was a great war leader (which he was), but we can also say he was pivotal in pushing us into both world wars at a terrible cost, but can we say with any certainty that the outcomes of both weren't necessarily better than an accommodation on the longer-term?
PS: someone will raise the issue that the Nazis were EVIL, well of course they were, the Holocaust will go down in history for ever as being the zenith of human depravity, but Stalin killed more people than Hitler in camps and persecutions, he just didn't have the psychopathic hatred for one group the Germans did, he just killed 'people'. Take your pick.
Even though you've edited this at least three times I can't believe that you believe it?In terms of just ww2 alone, was siding with Russia worse than some accommodation with Germany (which would have been weakened by a war with Russia anyway) and what did we get, well a world dominated by the atomic bomb, half of Europe controlled by a communist totalitarian state for 50 years and numerous wars and global instability. In other words, whilst not advocating passivism, both world wars came at a terrible cost and, as Harrison's book 'Fatherland' showed, the Nazi regime would have run its course like the Russian one did.
Going well off topic, but one of our problems in the UK is that because WW2 was so disastrous for us, we spent most of the post-war period being conditioned by films and received wisdom that we had achieved a glorious victory over the Hun, and our plucky lads and lasses had done this almost singlehandedly with some help from Steve McQueen and a few Canadians. What we weren't taught is how the war bankrupted us, how good the German army really was compared to the allied armies (esp. the British most of the time), and how it was the Russians (as has already been said on this thread) that really bled the Germans of their resources and manpower, and it was the Americans who lent us cash and floated us to carry on fighting (and screwed us in the process).
Point being? Well we can say we were brave to fight both world wars (which we were) and that Churchill was a great war leader (which he was), but we can also say he was pivotal in pushing us into both world wars at a terrible cost, but can we say with any certainty that the outcomes of both weren't necessarily better than an accommodation on the longer-term?
PS: someone will raise the issue that the Nazis were EVIL, well of course they were, the Holocaust will go down in history for ever as being the zenith of human depravity, but Stalin killed more people than Hitler in camps and persecutions, he just didn't have the psychopathic hatred for one group the Germans did, he just killed 'people'. Take your pick.
Edited by Blue One on Wednesday 28th September 08:31
Edited by Blue One on Wednesday 28th September 08:32
Edited by Blue One on Wednesday 28th September 08:33
Churchill didn't have a penchant for with the Germans, he worked day and night to find a peaceful solution prior to WW1 until the night Germany declared war on Russia and still tried to get Belgiums neutrality protected after that.
For WW2 there was no penchant for war from Churchill, Hitler made sure war was coming and there was no avoiding it.
He wasn't pivotal in starting or getting us into either war, he just happened, along with millions of others to be there.
Your completely empty argument about the cost of both World Wars and proposition that we might have been better off with a 'benign' Germany misses one gigantic point - Nazi Germany wasn't benign. It was murderous, poisonous, fanatical and overwhelmed almost all of Europe; your clearly passifist tone is almost denial in tone about the atrocities the Nazi's commited all over the sphere of their control.
Arguing that Nazi Germany could have been 'benign' is perhaps the most idiotic and stupid comment yet on this thread and there is stiff competition.
Whether under Nazi control or Stalinist control, the future of any of it's peoples was down to pure chance, luck and the flip of a coin or the twitch of a thumb, and that was just its supporters, let alone its enemies. Your entire piece seems to present that as a better option than fighting for your freedom?
I'm not sure what kind of a person you are away from a forum but on here you are representing yourself as a spineless apologist and in firm denial of the true horrors that our forebears all had no choice but to stand up and fight against in both world wars.
Show your posts on here to your family and see what they make of their meek, spineless, denial tone.
For your information and to help you better form opinions, 'Fatherland' is a work of fiction whereas the battlefields of Flanders, the beaches of Northern France and the death camps liberally spread across eastern Europe are real and truthful reminders of the subject at hand.
mcdjl said:
I was reading his point as being if we hadn't fought WWI, the Nazis wouldn't have existed. The pre-WW1 Germany wasn't too difficult to the UK at that time in outlook, where as pre-WWII nazi Germany was very different. By not engaging in WWI those immediate lives would have been saved, the lines on a map different and another European war would have had the UK sat on the side lines or nudging here and there in our own interests.
This, exactly!Our learned friend who gushed out his lengthy reply to my last post would do well to do his prep first...
Blue One said:
mcdjl said:
I was reading his point as being if we hadn't fought WWI, the Nazis wouldn't have existed. The pre-WW1 Germany wasn't too difficult to the UK at that time in outlook, where as pre-WWII nazi Germany was very different. By not engaging in WWI those immediate lives would have been saved, the lines on a map different and another European war would have had the UK sat on the side lines or nudging here and there in our own interests.
This, exactly!Our learned friend who gushed out his lengthy reply to my last post would do well to do his prep first...
A different trajectory of a bit of shrapnel in WW1 would have probably meant that WW2 never happened.
V6Pushfit said:
Blue One said:
mcdjl said:
I was reading his point as being if we hadn't fought WWI, the Nazis wouldn't have existed. The pre-WW1 Germany wasn't too difficult to the UK at that time in outlook, where as pre-WWII nazi Germany was very different. By not engaging in WWI those immediate lives would have been saved, the lines on a map different and another European war would have had the UK sat on the side lines or nudging here and there in our own interests.
This, exactly!Our learned friend who gushed out his lengthy reply to my last post would do well to do his prep first...
A different trajectory of a bit of shrapnel in WW1 would have probably meant that WW2 never happened.
This is how Marshall Foch greeted the treaty of Versaille "This is not a peace. It is an armistice for twenty years"
20 years and 65 days later, WW2 broke out. This was not an argument that the treaty was too harsh but that it did not prevent Germany rising again.
When he made those comments Hitler was a nobody. The "unique aberration" in history as the rise of the Nazis is presented was merely in terms of the organised genocidal nature of the regime, not its propensity to war nor indeed the harsh treatment it meted out to civilians in occupied territories.
The dangerous combination of the German national character in the first half of the twentieth century, its economic development and demographic strength made war almost inevitable. Belief in racial superiority over the Slav was not a Nazi invention but had deep ideological roots. Early in WW1 the Kaiser called for Russian prisoners taken to be left to starve to death (though I don't believe this was carried out).
As a book I have read on WW2 points out British officers tended to regard their German counter-parts as being the same as them as they had good table manners. Ignoring the crimes they had committed or would be willing to commit.
So no pre-WW1 Germany was not much the same as the UK as it dreamed of forging a new empire in the east and carrying out a race war against the Slav.
V6Pushfit said:
But what good would no WW1 have done? Would Europe be all German now?
A different trajectory of a bit of shrapnel in WW1 would have probably meant that WW2 never happened.
Quite possibly, but a benign Germany- perhaps? So many alternative histories for mere moments of chance!A different trajectory of a bit of shrapnel in WW1 would have probably meant that WW2 never happened.
JagLover said:
Very doubtful
This is how Marshall Foch greeted the treaty of Versaille "This is not a peace. It is an armistice for twenty years"
As a book I have read on WW2 points out British officers tended to regard their German counter-parts as being the same as them as they had good table manners. Ignoring the crimes they had committed or would be willing to commit.
So no pre-WW1 Germany was not much the same as the UK as it dreamed of forging a new empire in the east and carrying out a race war against the Slav.
Just looking back through history he could have picked 20 years, no matter what the treaty said. The only difference for the last 70 years is that the wars have only been on the edge of Europe, rather than ranging through it, as they have for the last 2000.This is how Marshall Foch greeted the treaty of Versaille "This is not a peace. It is an armistice for twenty years"
As a book I have read on WW2 points out British officers tended to regard their German counter-parts as being the same as them as they had good table manners. Ignoring the crimes they had committed or would be willing to commit.
So no pre-WW1 Germany was not much the same as the UK as it dreamed of forging a new empire in the east and carrying out a race war against the Slav.
As you say, not so different. The UK had the empire and weren't so picky about who we fought...well the Irish/Scottish may disagree on that point.
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. This is not true, Churchill was not instrumental in Hitler's demise
Russia is the country that won WW11
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.
If the UK (and epecially the States) had not shipped vast quanties of food, trucks, aroplanes, military equipment etc etc when most importantly needed, then Russia may have succumbed. Saying that, Russia took the brunt and the fight to the Nazis and without their vast numbers of cannon fodder, the war at least on the ground in Europe would have gone on for many many more years without them.
Back to Churchill. He was a man of his time. The options in Europe back in the late thirties, early forties were one of the following:
Stalin
Hitler
Churchill
Mussolini
Franco
I know which I would pick.
Edited by Wozy68 on Wednesday 28th September 13:38
Leaving aside Ww2 for a moment...
His actions leading to the disaster that was Gallipoli were abysmal. He treated colonial troops with utter disdain and little more than cannon fodder.
Yes. It was the mindset of the time. But it was complete detachment from the needless sacrifice of human life
His actions leading to the disaster that was Gallipoli were abysmal. He treated colonial troops with utter disdain and little more than cannon fodder.
Yes. It was the mindset of the time. But it was complete detachment from the needless sacrifice of human life
Colonial said:
Leaving aside Ww2 for a moment...
His actions leading to the disaster that was Gallipolli were abysmal. He treated colonial troops with utter disdain and little more than cannon fodder.
Yes. It was the mindset of the time. But it was complete detachment from the needless sacrifice of human life
A successful Dardanelles operation was probably the only way the war could have been won with a lower casualty rate for the western allies than eventually resulted.His actions leading to the disaster that was Gallipolli were abysmal. He treated colonial troops with utter disdain and little more than cannon fodder.
Yes. It was the mindset of the time. But it was complete detachment from the needless sacrifice of human life
It was not the idea that was at fault but the execution.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff