Winston Churchill - good guy or bad guy?

[s2art]

Mrr T said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

You appear to have completely and utterly ignored the impact of the arctic convoys of thousands upon thousands of tons of war materiel supplied to the Russian military by the US and UK, without which Western Russia would have been wiped out.

While we must all respect the bravery of those who sailed on the artic convoys they were more symbolic that a real influence. They ran for 4 years and with about 1,400 ship arriving. To put that in perspective that’s about 1 ship a day.

The Russians themselves say that although the aid could have been bigger, the UK supplied it at a critical time for the USSR. Aside from fighters, tanks etc the UK supplied them with stuff like 5 million pairs of boots (made in Burmah I think), 20,000 km of shielded wire and a whole load of non obvious stuff.

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

Edited by s2art on Friday 15th February 16:32

[captain_cynic]

Mrr T said:

While we must all respect the bravery of those who sailed on the artic convoys they were more symbolic that a real influence. They ran for 4 years and with about 1,400 ship arriving. To put that in perspective that’s about 1 ship a day.

Not to mention the ships that were lost. The early version Liberty ships had a flaw that caused the steel to be come brittle and crack under extreme cold and could easily cause the ship to snap in half. If memory serves, the welded on some extra belt armour designed to withstand colder temperatures as a stopgap.

Logistics may not be as glamorous as other roles, but without it, the war is lost.

[Earthdweller]

Kermit power 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

I know this post is from ages ago, but I still feel it needs some response!

I'd never heard of the Bengal Famine, so I've just been off taking a look at it. As I can see it, we can make some comparisons...

The Bengal Famine killed 2-3 million out of a population of around 60m. The provincial (not UK) government denied there was a famine at all, and
pursued some pretty disastrous policies which resulted in many of the deaths. Aid didn't really start flowing at all until the Indian Army took over.

A large part of the reason for the famine, at least in the earliest stages, was the implementation of a policy to remove food from a buffer zone between Japanese-occupied Burma and the heart of India to reduce any risk of invasion. There was also priority distribution of food, but this wasn't, as I believe you suggested in an earlier post, to take food from starving Bengalis and give it to non-starving people in Europe. It was an Indian government policy to redistribute food to specific groups in India. I'm not sure that Churchill had anything to do with this?

Was Churchill to blame? Possibly in part. I certainly don't believe for one second that he suddenly sat down in the middle of WW2 to decide how best to go about murdering a few million Indians, but if he was having to give consideration to where to send shipping in particular, then his dislike of Indians may well have influenced him to keep using that shipping to send supplies to Russia and elsewhere, rather than using it to take grain to Bengal.


The Holocaust, on the other hand, was the deliberate and senseless murder of 6 million Jews - well over 50% of the Jewish population of Europe at the time - and at least as many more disabled, homosexuals, Slavs, Roma and other groups. It was driven purely by the lunatic desires of Hitler and his closest allies, with absolutely no regard for any sort of logical thinking.

There were no considerations given in the committal of the Holocaust to ring-fencing resources for the war effort. Quite the opposite, in fact. Troops were diverted from combat to man the concentration camps, as were the resources used to build the camps, the trains that transported prisoners to them and so forth.

Beyond the fact that millions died in both events, I cannot see a single further valid point of comparison. That you would try to give equivalence to both is frankly absurd, and a complete insult to those who died in both events. Trying to use those deaths to score a political point is pretty shameful.

I don’t think Churchill was responsible for the deaths of civilians in Bengal at all, in the same way he was not responsible for the death of a miner in Tonypandy either

Whilst, he was a flawed character in many ways, and it is true made some questionable strategic decisions, he was not a bad man

He undoubtedly had the interests of Britain and her Empire at heart

In 1943 the world was embroiled in a global conflict the like of which had not and hasn’t been seen since ( thank God )

In any conflict there will always be unintended consequences and collateral damage but to say that one of the key strategic leaders was responsible for those deaths in a distant theatre is unfair and untrue

[JagLover]

Mrr T said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

You appear to have completely and utterly ignored the impact of the arctic convoys of thousands upon thousands of tons of war materiel supplied to the Russian military by the US and UK, without which Western Russia would have been wiped out.

While we must all respect the bravery of those who sailed on the artic convoys they were more symbolic that a real influence. They ran for 4 years and with about 1,400 ship arriving. To put that in perspective that’s about 1 ship a day.

While that may be true that does significantly understate the scale of Allied support for the Soviet Union as that was merely one supply route among many. The other main supply routes were up through Persia/Iran and deliveries to the Pacific coast.

[Penelope Stopit]

Earthdweller said:

Kermit power 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

I know this post is from ages ago, but I still feel it needs some response!

I'd never heard of the Bengal Famine, so I've just been off taking a look at it. As I can see it, we can make some comparisons...

The Bengal Famine killed 2-3 million out of a population of around 60m. The provincial (not UK) government denied there was a famine at all, and
pursued some pretty disastrous policies which resulted in many of the deaths. Aid didn't really start flowing at all until the Indian Army took over.

A large part of the reason for the famine, at least in the earliest stages, was the implementation of a policy to remove food from a buffer zone between Japanese-occupied Burma and the heart of India to reduce any risk of invasion. There was also priority distribution of food, but this wasn't, as I believe you suggested in an earlier post, to take food from starving Bengalis and give it to non-starving people in Europe. It was an Indian government policy to redistribute food to specific groups in India. I'm not sure that Churchill had anything to do with this?

Was Churchill to blame? Possibly in part. I certainly don't believe for one second that he suddenly sat down in the middle of WW2 to decide how best to go about murdering a few million Indians, but if he was having to give consideration to where to send shipping in particular, then his dislike of Indians may well have influenced him to keep using that shipping to send supplies to Russia and elsewhere, rather than using it to take grain to Bengal.


The Holocaust, on the other hand, was the deliberate and senseless murder of 6 million Jews - well over 50% of the Jewish population of Europe at the time - and at least as many more disabled, homosexuals, Slavs, Roma and other groups. It was driven purely by the lunatic desires of Hitler and his closest allies, with absolutely no regard for any sort of logical thinking.

There were no considerations given in the committal of the Holocaust to ring-fencing resources for the war effort. Quite the opposite, in fact. Troops were diverted from combat to man the concentration camps, as were the resources used to build the camps, the trains that transported prisoners to them and so forth.

Beyond the fact that millions died in both events, I cannot see a single further valid point of comparison. That you would try to give equivalence to both is frankly absurd, and a complete insult to those who died in both events. Trying to use those deaths to score a political point is pretty shameful.

I don’t think Churchill was responsible for the deaths of civilians in Bengal at all, in the same way he was not responsible for the death of a miner in Tonypandy either

Whilst, he was a flawed character in many ways, and it is true made some questionable strategic decisions, he was not a bad man

He undoubtedly had the interests of Britain and her Empire at heart

In 1943 the world was embroiled in a global conflict the like of which had not and hasn’t been seen since ( thank God )

In any conflict there will always be unintended consequences and collateral damage but to say that one of the key strategic leaders was responsible for those deaths in a distant theatre is unfair and untrue

You are living in a dream world and wish to carry on doing so, you don't wish to believe the facts

I doubt you will read this https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/world-his...

Did you really post this? He undoubtedly had the interests of Britain and her Empire at heart
https://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/modern-world...

The mind boggles

[Halb]

this is an amusing yt vid...which curiously appeared on my to watch list...

WW2 - OverSimplified (Part 1)
OverSimplified Published on 15 Mar 2018
13mins
OverSimplified
https://youtu.be/_uk_6vfqwTA

[Penelope Stopit]

Kermit power 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

I know this post is from ages ago, but I still feel it needs some response!

I'd never heard of the Bengal Famine, so I've just been off taking a look at it. As I can see it, we can make some comparisons...

The Bengal Famine killed 2-3 million out of a population of around 60m. The provincial (not UK) government denied there was a famine at all, and
pursued some pretty disastrous policies which resulted in many of the deaths. Aid didn't really start flowing at all until the Indian Army took over.

A large part of the reason for the famine, at least in the earliest stages, was the implementation of a policy to remove food from a buffer zone between Japanese-occupied Burma and the heart of India to reduce any risk of invasion. There was also priority distribution of food, but this wasn't, as I believe you suggested in an earlier post, to take food from starving Bengalis and give it to non-starving people in Europe. It was an Indian government policy to redistribute food to specific groups in India. I'm not sure that Churchill had anything to do with this?

Was Churchill to blame? Possibly in part. I certainly don't believe for one second that he suddenly sat down in the middle of WW2 to decide how best to go about murdering a few million Indians, but if he was having to give consideration to where to send shipping in particular, then his dislike of Indians may well have influenced him to keep using that shipping to send supplies to Russia and elsewhere, rather than using it to take grain to Bengal.


The Holocaust, on the other hand, was the deliberate and senseless murder of 6 million Jews - well over 50% of the Jewish population of Europe at the time - and at least as many more disabled, homosexuals, Slavs, Roma and other groups. It was driven purely by the lunatic desires of Hitler and his closest allies, with absolutely no regard for any sort of logical thinking.

There were no considerations given in the committal of the Holocaust to ring-fencing resources for the war effort. Quite the opposite, in fact. Troops were diverted from combat to man the concentration camps, as were the resources used to build the camps, the trains that transported prisoners to them and so forth.

Beyond the fact that millions died in both events, I cannot see a single further valid point of comparison. That you would try to give equivalence to both is frankly absurd, and a complete insult to those who died in both events. Trying to use those deaths to score a political point is pretty shameful.

Rubbish - Churchill knew that India would soon get back its independence, he didn't like the natives and decided to shrug off a famine as tough luck and let them starve to death
He is responsible for the deaths of millions of people
There are many other bad things he is responsible for

[Fat Fairy]

Penelope Stopit said:

You are living in a dream world and wish to carry on doing so, you don't wish to believe the facts

I doubt you will read this https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/world-his...

Did you really post this? He undoubtedly had the interests of Britain and her Empire at heart
https://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/modern-world...

The mind boggles

Well I HAVE read Tharoor's claptrap. The headline is "Winston Churchill has as much blood on his hands as the worst genocidal dictators, claims Indian politician.."

A populist Indian politician.

So, sorry. It cuts no ice with me. Tharoor avoids/ignores other RESPECTED academics/historians to gain popular votes. He ignores the effects of Hoarders/Black Marketeers/ignorance and incompetence from the local government (Indian regional government)/ THE WAR/the Japanese (sinking supply ships) and the fact that Churchill BEGGED Roosevelt for grain, but FDR couldn'yt help.

In my opinion, Tharoor and the Independent are equally revolting. But in his defence, at least Tharoor has a political agenda. The Indy is just Self Loathing.

FF

Edited by Fat Fairy on Friday 15th February 18:44

[mcdjl]

Penelope Stopit said:

You are living in a dream world and wish to carry on doing so, you don't wish to believe the facts

I doubt you will read this https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/world-his...

Did you really post this? He undoubtedly had the interests of Britain and her Empire at heart
https://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/modern-world...

The mind boggles

I've just read them. The first says that Churchill was complicit. It offers no suggestion as to what extent, nor whether anyone else was also complicit.
The second mentions Churchill once, saying he was opposed to the second India act in 1935. If that makes him a bad man, then so are a great number of other people of that time. Don't get me wrong, us British have been nasty to a lot of the world. We managed to do so in India by picking the right (the one that would let us be in charge) sides in local battles and f coming out on top. To say Churchill was bad because he was against Indian independence is roughly the equivalent of calling me bad because I think brexit and Scottish independence are bad ideas. Though I haven't achieved anything like what he has.

[Earthdweller]

Penelope Stopit said:

You are living in a dream world and wish to carry on doing so, you don't wish to believe the facts

I doubt you will read this https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/world-his...

Did you really post this? He undoubtedly had the interests of Britain and her Empire at heart
https://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/modern-world...

The mind boggles

Yes I did post that and I’m afraid your grasp of history is lacking

Neither of your links have any credibility in saying why Churchill was bad

The first post is opinion, not based on fact and the second only briefly mentions Churchlll, in that he opposed an agreement that disenfranchised 1/3 of India’s population stoking the issues a decade later. History would confirm that opposing the 1935 India Act was probably the correct course of action

[Kermit power]

Penelope Stopit said:

Rubbish - Churchill knew that India would soon get back its independence, he didn't like the natives and decided to shrug off a famine as tough luck and let them starve to death

Good lord, you're unbelievable!

It was a time of war. Resources were scarce everywhere. Sure, maybe Churchill could've sent ships full of grain to Bengal, but at what cost to the North Atlantic convoys, the North African campaign, the landings in Italy and everything else going on at around the same time which had to be catered for?

I'm quite willing to accept that Churchill's apparent dislike of the Indians may well have made that decision easier for him, but for you to view that as being on a par with Hitler's genocide is, quite frankly barking fking mad, no matter how many articles by populist Indian politicians with a book to sell you link is to!

Regardless of any views for or against Churchill, you should honestly be ashamed of yourself for the way you're belittling the horror inflicted on the victims of the holocaust.

[irocfan]

Kermit power said:

Regardless of any views for or against Churchill, you should honestly be ashamed of yourself for the way you're belittling the horror inflicted on the victims of the holocaust.

Typical of the self loathing left I'm afraid

[Derek Smith]

Henners said:

WeCumTitVillage said:

Derek Smith said:

The carpet bombing on Germany would have been treated as a war crime if the Germans had won. Churchill would have been found guilty. There was an unofficial group in the RAF that called itself APC. This was for aiming point cathedral. Some pilots and crew would deliberately overfly cities and towns that they were supposed to carpet bomb with incendiaries and such and drop them in fields, far enough away not to confuse. The tactic was to drop incendiaries first to, obviously, get fires started, and then high explosives to stop rescue attempts and to spread the fire. It is not as if those in charge did not understand what they were doing.

The tactic was to drop high explosive first ( of in mixed loads ) to cause blast damage to roofs and structures, so that incendiaries have a better chance of working.

That's how I understood it.

I read up on this as I was sure I was right. It seems I was wrong. I've been reading a fair bit on the modern history of Japan and that includes the war years. It seems the tactic of dropping incendiaries was specific to the bombing of certain Japanese cities due to the inflammable nature of the structures of the residential areas.

My apologies.

768 said:

I don't know that he wasn't seen as a hero then, I'm sure I've heard quotes about people at the time of the 1945 election referring to him as a hero in spite of voting for Atlee.

Besides, Labour were promising free stuff to a nation who'd been at war and not able to vote their government out. I wouldn't pin too much on Churchill for losing that one.

The 'free stuff' is way off.

Much of the voting population could remember the time after the previous war where they were promised, and expected, a land fit for heroes to live in. The appalling conditions that the masses had to live in was still a strong memory. Whilst it was inept financial management that caused the problems, it was felt that it was deliberate policy not to help those who went without food and heating.

Fast forward to 1945 and all of a sudden they had a party which was promising a more managed society. Much was made of insurance and definitely not 'free stuff'. They were offering jobs as well. In fact, Atlee promised hard times, but a sympathetic government. It was this last that many felt cost him the 51 election as he said some form of rationing should continue while the tories were more profligate with their promises.

There would be no 'fee stuff', or rather funding to rebuild a shattered infrastructure and economy, without massive injections of money from the USA. I knew a chap who, when the USA stopped all financial help to the UK when the war ended, drew up plans for school children to work in the fields to gather the harvest. Little 'free stuff' was expected by those returning from the war.

I'm not sure hero was a term in common usage at the time, at least not applied to MPs. The country was awash with real heros, men and women who'd put their lives at risk, and that's not to mention the men, women and children who were, virtually, in the front line.

I'm certain there were those at the time who thought Churchill was a hero. I know there were many who did not, at least in comparison to those who'd fought for years.

[Kermit power]

Derek Smith said:

The 'free stuff' is way off.

Much of the voting population could remember the time after the previous war where they were promised, and expected, a land fit for heroes to live in. The appalling conditions that the masses had to live in was still a strong memory. Whilst it was inept financial management that caused the problems, it was felt that it was deliberate policy not to help those who went without food and heating.

Fast forward to 1945 and all of a sudden they had a party which was promising a more managed society. Much was made of insurance and definitely not 'free stuff'. They were offering jobs as well. In fact, Atlee promised hard times, but a sympathetic government. It was this last that many felt cost him the 51 election as he said some form of rationing should continue while the tories were more profligate with their promises.

There would be no 'fee stuff', or rather funding to rebuild a shattered infrastructure and economy, without massive injections of money from the USA. I knew a chap who, when the USA stopped all financial help to the UK when the war ended, drew up plans for school children to work in the fields to gather the harvest. Little 'free stuff' was expected by those returning from the war.

I'm not sure hero was a term in common usage at the time, at least not applied to MPs. The country was awash with real heros, men and women who'd put their lives at risk, and that's not to mention the men, women and children who were, virtually, in the front line.

I'm certain there were those at the time who thought Churchill was a hero. I know there were many who did not, at least in comparison to those who'd fought for years.

I certainly don't think of Churchill as a hero. He was, however, able to inspire heroes. As such, I suspect he may well have had more influence on the final outcome than any other single individual on the Allied side.

[anonymous-user]

I don’t get why 11% think he was bad.

Do 11% of the uk consider that the parochial Welsh thing and some of what he did as part of the Total War with Germany, outbalance his genius and devotion to putting his Everything and All into achieving the best possible outcome for Great Britain??

He’s a monumental British hero IMO, but as such has become a target for armchair critics who would never have been able to be born had Churchill failed.

[williamp]

Kermit power said:

Good lord, you're unbelievable!

It was a time of war. Resources were scarce everywhere. Sure, maybe Churchill could've sent ships full of grain to Bengal, but at what cost to the North Atlantic convoys, the North African campaign, the landings in Italy and everything else going on at around the same time which had to be catered for?

I'm quite willing to accept that Churchill's apparent dislike of the Indians may well have made that decision easier for him, but for you to view that as being on a par with Hitler's genocide is, quite frankly barking fking mad, no matter how many articles by populist Indian politicians with a book to sell you link is to!

Regardless of any views for or against Churchill, you should honestly be ashamed of yourself for the way you're belittling the horror inflicted on the victims of the holocaust.

Churchill didnt call a "time out" to let aid relief through, you see...

[Turfy]

Digga said:

I agree. WW2 was such a huge and complex situation that it is almost impossible to fathom the effects of 'unplugging' one action or policy.

Ultimately history is written by the victors. It has always been this way and may always be (maybe less so because of the internet - take news as an example).

[F1GTRUeno]

V6 Pushfit said:

I don’t get why 11% think he was bad.

Do 11% of the uk consider that the parochial Welsh thing and some of what he did as part of the Total War with Germany, outbalance his genius and devotion to putting his Everything and All into achieving the best possible outcome for Great Britain??

He’s a monumental British hero IMO, but as such has become a target for armchair critics who would never have been able to be born had Churchill failed.

We'd prefer to give the credit for winning the war to people that actually decided it, strategised it and fought in it instead of a old bd with a big mouth acting as the mouthpiece for the media to froth over.

If he didn't get ALL of the credit for winning the war then perhaps it'd be a bit easier to swallow the hyperbolic bks that he's a hero.

[anonymous-user]

F1GTRUeno said:

We'd prefer to give the credit for winning the war to people that actually decided it, strategised it and fought in it instead of a old bd with a big mouth acting as the mouthpiece for the media to froth over.

If he didn't get ALL of the credit for winning the war then perhaps it'd be a bit easier to swallow the hyperbolic bks that he's a hero.

Who else could have achieved it? Atlee?

He was exactly what was needed at the time - a British Bulldog. His strategies, experience, stubbornness and general leadership attributes all did the job.

To say otherwise is a bit like saying Corbyn would do a better Brexit. Laughable as he would just st himself and wouldn’t have a single clue where to start.

[Halb]

Atlee may have done, we don't know. I suppose we know(ish) that if Halifax had decided to take the post, the UK involvement in the war may nit have lasted that long.


there's a new drama on now, C4, Traitors. It's about the yanks not liking the UK choosing Atlee and social reform over Churchill in the '45 election. It's decent thus far.