Winston Churchill - good guy or bad guy?

[F1GTRUeno]

V6 Pushfit said:

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.

You appear to have missed the point.

The war wasn't won due to the actions of one man and yet here you are asking 'who else could've achieved it?'

That Churchill gets the credit for millions of people and their actions and gets painted as a hero rather than them (or at least, moreso than them) is wrong in the extreme.

What exactly did HE do? Specifics please as to how he changed the course of history individually.

I mean, people in this thread defending him on India have said that he individually probably didn't do a lot to affect it so why does he get the credit for winning the war? Why is HE the hero we needed as opposed to the entire war effort and everyone that fought on the front lines for instance? Is it a psychological thing to give thanks to them all by thanking one man as a singular entity for all of them or what?

What did Winston Churchill do on his own that was heroic? Let alone be worthy of the frothing worship he gets at large? It's important given this thread is trying to determine what he individually was like.

Edited by F1GTRUeno on Sunday 17th February 23:09

Edited by F1GTRUeno on Sunday 17th February 23:09

[RobDickinson]

He lead the country.
Decided on the top level direction and strategy inspired all those millions of others to follow and gave them confidence in their actions.

Like, you know, a leader is supposed to do.

Don't forget there was likely many choices he made that were not obvious out of the possibilities on offer. He had no hindsight. Certainly not making uninformed decisions but holding the ultimate responsibility for them.

Victory proved him up to the task.

[JagLover]

F1GTRUeno said:

What exactly did HE do? Specifics please as to how he changed the course of history individually.

He kept Britain in the war after the fall of France, when there was a strong faction calling for peace with Germany at that point. Without Britain in the war Germany might have won in the east, whether that be total victory or another treaty like Brest litovsk

He also had a strong influence on the conduct of the war in the west after the Americans joined to propose a more cautious approach and minimise allied casualties. For example it was the British calling for D Day to be postponed by a year from 1943 to 1944

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/world-war-i...

Added to which is all the points made above, like being an inspiring figurehead.

[768]

F1GTRUeno said:

The war wasn't won due to the actions of one man and yet here you are asking 'who else could've achieved it?'

That Churchill gets the credit for millions of people and their actions and gets painted as a hero rather than them (or at least, moreso than them) is wrong in the extreme.

The actions of few men could have lost the war though.

[irocfan]

768 said:

The actions of few men could have lost the war though.

absolutely - could you imagine Moseley having the ear of those in power? The resources of the Empire and the RN if not actively working for the Nazis giving them aid and materials?

[mcdjl]

F1GTRUeno said:

You appear to have missed the point.

The war wasn't won due to the actions of one man and yet here you are asking 'who else could've achieved it?'

That Churchill gets the credit for millions of people and their actions and gets painted as a hero rather than them (or at least, moreso than them) is wrong in the extreme.

What exactly did HE do? Specifics please as to how he changed the course of history individually.

I mean, people in this thread defending him on India have said that he individually probably didn't do a lot to affect it so why does he get the credit for winning the war? Why is HE the hero we needed as opposed to the entire war effort and everyone that fought on the front lines for instance? Is it a psychological thing to give thanks to them all by thanking one man as a singular entity for all of them or what?

What did Winston Churchill do on his own that was heroic? Let alone be worthy of the frothing worship he gets at large? It's important given this thread is trying to determine what he individually was like.

Edited by F1GTRUeno on Sunday 17th February 23:09

Edited by F1GTRUeno on Sunday 17th February 23:09

He might not have decided on the strategy but he did pick the strategist. On a number of occasions eg RAF he had to pick which air marshal to listen to and who's plan to go with. As with the Burma famine he was reliant on the information he got given which would frequently have been conflicting and make a decision. Someone mentioned Turing, Churchill and the rest of high command had to filter the information gained through code breaking, acting on some of it and not others to avoid the Germans suspecting their codes were broken. He won't have taken all those decisions and others will have taken some but he certainly led. Hero? Maybe. I wouldn't want to have done what he did knowing that my choice would result in hundreds of deaths.....but might protect thousands. Not all hero's wear capes. But that's a different question to good / bad.

[V8 Fettler]

After Dunkirk, I doubt if the British would have surrendered in any realistic scenario, unless starved by the U-boats.

[JagLover]

V8 Fettler said:

After Dunkirk, I doubt if the British would have surrendered in any realistic scenario, unless starved by the U-boats.

Not "surrendered" no, but given there was no realistic prospect of invasion there was no need to.

Come to a peace settlement, very possibly, with different leadership, the territorial concessions of the British empire in such a peace may have been minor, limited to the former German African colonies.

[vonuber]

V8 Fettler said:

After Dunkirk, I doubt if the British would have surrendered in any realistic scenario, unless starved by the U-boats.

Indeed. Dunkirk was Germany's only real chance and they failed to grasp it.
The capture of pretty much most of the BEF - at a point where the war hadn't really got going - could have been a game changer.

[Halb]

JagLover said:

Not "surrendered" no, but given there was no realistic prospect of invasion there was no need to.

Come to a peace settlement, very possibly, with different leadership, the territorial concessions of the British empire in such a peace may have been minor, limited to the former German African colonies.

There was a very real prospect of a 'settled' peace quite a long way into the war. It's chance slowly eroded until they finally went, sometime at or around when Hess was locked up.

[V8 Fettler]

JagLover said:

V8 Fettler said:

After Dunkirk, I doubt if the British would have surrendered in any realistic scenario, unless starved by the U-boats.

Not "surrendered" no, but given there was no realistic prospect of invasion there was no need to.

Come to a peace settlement, very possibly, with different leadership, the territorial concessions of the British empire in such a peace may have been minor, limited to the former German African colonies.

The Germans didn't need to invade to defeat the British by invasion, a U-boat blockade could have been sufficient.

Politically and militarily, the British cannot accept a Europe dominated by Germany. Many variables and unknowns, but any negotiations where the Germans have the upper hand would probably require the RN to be substantially reduced, which would also be unacceptable to the British.

Hang on until the Yanks arrive.

[Halb]

mcdjl said:

He might not have decided on the strategy but he did pick the strategist. On a number of occasions eg RAF he had to pick which air marshal to listen to and who's plan to go with. As with the Burma famine he was reliant on the information he got given which would frequently have been conflicting and make a decision. Someone mentioned Turing, Churchill and the rest of high command had to filter the information gained through code breaking, acting on some of it and not others to avoid the Germans suspecting their codes were broken. He won't have taken all those decisions and others will have taken some but he certainly led. Hero? Maybe. I wouldn't want to have done what he did knowing that my choice would result in hundreds of deaths.....but might protect thousands. Not all hero's wear capes. But that's a different question to good / bad.

He made great choices, he made horrible choices, he was extremely lucky with his generals, he disliked Monty and wanted to get rid of him. Churchill didn't understand, like Monty, what was needed in N. Africa, he was a good strategist, but a bad tactician. Not even taking the leaks to the US (which allowed Rommel to almost win) into account.

[JagLover]

V8 Fettler said:

Hang on until the Yanks arrive.

Which wasn't at all certain in the summer of 1940, given strong American neutrality sentiment.

The choice was between a negotiated peace which would have had a minimal impact on the British Empire, and unlikely to include any reduction in the Royal navy, or fighting on with no prospect of achieving victory alone.

What I liked about the Darkest Hour is that it showed the true choice facing Britain (though no doubt they embellished the details). So Churchill's main claim to greatness is he choose to fight on because the cause was just and was vindicated by history.

[V8 Fettler]

JagLover said:

V8 Fettler said:

Hang on until the Yanks arrive.

Which wasn't at all certain in the summer of 1940, given strong American neutrality sentiment.

The choice was between a negotiated peace which would have had a minimal impact on the British Empire, and unlikely to include any reduction in the Royal navy, or fighting on with no prospect of achieving victory alone.

What I liked about the Darkest Hour is that it showed the true choice facing Britain (though no doubt they embellished the details). So Churchill's main claim to greatness is he choose to fight on because the cause was just and was vindicated by history.

There were several choices, one of which was to hang on, which ultimately proved successful.

[Yertis]

Derek Smith said:

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.

I've just searched this "APC" thing and can find literally no reference to it anywhere. Where's your source? I'm genuinely interested. Dropping incendiaries in open country wouldn't cause much of a blaze – without the dry timber found in old buildings they'd just spark and fizzle out – and the aircrew would have been well aware of this. An actual problem for Bomber Command was creep-back, where bombers dropped their loads short of the aiming point, for obvious understandable reasons. Photoflash bombs were introduced to establish the position of bombers at the point of release, so crews deliberately bombing open countryside would – I guess – have been courting an LMF charge.

[Derek Smith]

Yertis said:

Derek Smith said:

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.

I've just searched this "APC" thing and can find literally no reference to it anywhere. Where's your source? I'm genuinely interested. Dropping incendiaries in open country wouldn't cause much of a blaze – without the dry timber found in old buildings they'd just spark and fizzle out – and the aircrew would have been well aware of this. An actual problem for Bomber Command was creep-back, where bombers dropped their loads short of the aiming point, for obvious understandable reasons. Photoflash bombs were introduced to establish the position of bombers at the point of release, so crews deliberately bombing open countryside would – I guess – have been courting an LMF charge.

There was an 'old boy', younger than me now, who returned from the war and lived near us. He was aircrew, never knew what, and was great friends with my father, both liking motorbikes. I got the info second hand from my father. I later became good friends with a lad whose father was also aircrew, navigator, and he, the father, mentioned APC. He spoke about it willingly, without holding back. I used to read a lot about the war in the air in those days and was interested in what the chap said.

He was unrepentant, and said that the crews that followed the refusal to bomb civilians were initially frightened on being charged with cowardice, so they overflew the target and bombed some poor farmer out lamping. When I joined the police, there was an ex-aircrew chap from bomber command and I broached the subject with him and his opinion was less supportive, but he knew it went on.

It seems to have been well known at the time that a number of aircrew did not feel able to bomb civilians. Many would have had friends, family, loved ones who had suffered through the blitz and ones assumes this had something to do with it. There were a number of programmes on radio and TV in the 60s and 70s which mentioned this reluctance to bomb civilians. Pig-sticking it was memorable called on one. They used the term Aiming Point Cathedral, suggesting it was in common use amongst aircrew.

I have no doubt it went on. It wasn't cowardice as the aircrews that avoided carpet bombing did everything the others did, apart from aim. I gave it a lot of thought at the time and wondered, as many must have done, whether I would have done the same. Imagine if it was you about to press the button, knowing all you are going to do is burn some poor sod to a crisp in the firestorm, or bury them under masonry. You know that your actions will mean that rescue will not come to them.

I did some searching for it in the City of London library and got the same result as you. Part of the problem might be that it wasn't a group as such. They didn't meet up. It was individuals although there might be more than one flying from each base. It is not something that the official historians would publicise, and I wonder if those who did it wanted to either. That said, it was generally accepted that it went on where I lived.

I talked to my father about the bombing. He lost relatives in a flying bomb attack on New Cross and was not that happy with 'us' doing the same but worse to Germans. The 'reap the whirlwind' didn't sit well with him. He more or less praised the pilots who refused to bomb civilians, sort of saying that it was a personal matter whether you would do so or not.

He shot down a plane over the Isle of Wight, the pilot baling out and being brought to shore by an RAF rescue boat. He 'took possession' of the pilot, saying he was their prisoner, and took him to a hut to warm him up. They got to talking - the German spoke understandable English - and they exchanged photographs of family. They remained in Christmas card correspondence at least until I left home in 1970. Knowing my dad, he would sort of imagine the pilot's family being burned for no particular reason.

15/20 years after the war there was a lot of contrary opinion about the carpet bombing of German cities. There were a lot of books on the air war but little in the way of glorifying the massed bombing raids. The most memorable one for me was Slaughterhouse Five, but that took it from a victim's point of view.

You can justify what was done by suggesting c'est la guerre, and that's a reasonable response. I think no one can argue with that. Everyone had to make sacrifices during the war, and trusting that decisions by those higher up were correct is one of them. Imagine having to fly bombers night after night, with the casualty rate that Bomber Command suffered. If some were, as it appears, able to keep their morals and beliefs intact, then good on them.

I would criticise neither those who bombed empty fields nor those who hit the flames. Those who ordered it is another matter. There were aircrew who did not return from the bombing of Dresden. There was a TV programme that asked the question whether their sacrifice was pointless. A point of view raised by the programme was that it was done to appease the Russians. Reason enough? There was a certain degree of ambivalence, and sometimes worse, with regards to Harris' actions.

The argument over it is now as dead as someone caught in the firestorm. It's history. Whether Harris was right, wrong, or confused is immaterial. However, it is somehow reassuring to think that some people kept a sense of right and wrong in all the carnage. It sort of gives hope.

Read The Slaughterhouse Five. It's horrific in the description of coming out of the slaughterhouse, and well as being a confusing and weird read. But surviving the Dresden bombing turned Vonnegut weird as well. It's a bit like Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. It all comes clear at the end, and for the same reason more or less.

[mcdjl]

A quick search suggests that cathedrales were used as aiming points: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=IUBcdk8Q69IC&a... on a number of occasions: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=-du3SNOKsqsC&a...

if we're talking about second sources then its possible that the 'group' name might be an adaptation or their target, or an indication of when they might 'refuse' to aim correctly.

[Halb]

Derek Smith said:

There was an 'old boy', younger than me now, who returned from the war and lived near us. He was aircrew, never knew what, and was great friends with my father, both liking motorbikes. I got the info second hand from my father. I later became good friends with a lad whose father was also aircrew, navigator, and he, the father, mentioned APC. He spoke about it willingly, without holding back. I used to read a lot about the war in the air in those days and was interested in what the chap said.


and greta stuff

personal history, it's the best. I read somewhere that Stalin wanted fire-bombing added to war crimes at Nuremburg, but cannot recall where.

Did the people you know ever mention foo fighters?

[irocfan]

mcdjl said:

A quick search suggests that cathedrales were used as aiming points: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=IUBcdk8Q69IC&a... on a number of occasions: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=-du3SNOKsqsC&a...

if we're talking about second sources then its possible that the 'group' name might be an adaptation or their target, or an indication of when they might 'refuse' to aim correctly.

was going to say similar to this (without the back-up) but I would have thought the cathedrals are town centre(ish) and so using them as an aiming point for raids would be 'sensible' (for want of a better word)

[alfie2244]

irocfan said:

mcdjl said:

A quick search suggests that cathedrales were used as aiming points: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=IUBcdk8Q69IC&a... on a number of occasions: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=-du3SNOKsqsC&a...

if we're talking about second sources then its possible that the 'group' name might be an adaptation or their target, or an indication of when they might 'refuse' to aim correctly.

was going to say similar to this (without the back-up) but I would have thought the cathedrals are town centre(ish) and so using them as an aiming point for raids would be 'sensible' (for want of a better word)

Yet IIRC from my time in Cologne..........everywhere was absolutely flattened with the exception of the, very beautiful I may add, cathedral....reason being it could act as a landmark for navigation....but then again I am not even sure targetting equipment would have been that accurate at the time.

eta an interesting link:

https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/cologne-cathedra-...

Edited by alfie2244 on Monday 18th February 18:43