"BBC History Magazine - controversial claim?" Topic

Od's Fish!

Dave, please do not try to bring reason into this discussion. Hurrumpf.

Fine I will bite. I dislike playing the British in the Napoleonic wars because of the war of 1812. I just have a hard time playing a country that burned down the white house! That said, I love playing the Brits in colonials and in WWII. I myself would love to move to England when the time is right!

I have nothing against modern Brits, in fact I love em! I just don't like playing them in Napoleonics. Much like how I do not play the Germans or Japanese in WWII, not that the Brits did anything as bad as them of course.

I hope that is understandable.

No it isn't but thanks for giving me a good laugh. ;o)

Saul David's books make for a good reading, but he's not the most accurate or nuanced historian I have read. Any of his opinions on Napoleon or anyone else for that matter should be taken with the proverbial pinch of salt.

Dave Crowell

I think you hit the nail on the head – the whole problem with the article in general (in my opinion) is that no criteria were really mentioned. It seemed in all cases to be more 'well, I don't really like this aspect of him'.

For example, to paraphrase the one about Winston Churchill the author was essentially saying, 'if he hadn't been the PM who galvanised Great Britain to defeat Hitler, he wouldn't be remembered'. Which is surely a bit like saying, if Neil Armstrong hadn't been the first man on the Moon, he wouldn't be remembered.
Charles Darwin was dismissed as 'over-rated' mainly because he did sloppy field work.

Unlike some of the other contributors, however, Saul David did specifically mention that he considered Napoleon over-rated as a military commander. And given that he lost several battles, invaded Russia with 400,000 men and marched out with just 10,000 effectives (I am quoting Saul David here), one must admit David has a point.

Well Churchill is due a revisionist approach.

To my parents he was a total hero who won the war for us and kept us all going.

More objectively there might not have been a war at all if Halifax had become PM instead of Churchill. There's a few million lives saved – and an Empire saved – if Halifax had emerged as PM.

The truth is that despite the efforts, huge insights and successes of the man, Churchill was a very, very dangerous man. Whenever he got involved and had a meddle, thousands or tens of thousands usually died. Often unnecessarily.

More objectively there might not have been a war at all if Halifax had become PM instead of Churchill. There's a few million lives saved – and an Empire saved – if Halifax had emerged as PM.

Rot.

There was already a war going on when Churchill when became PM. The Nazis had invaded Poland, and France and Great Britain had declared war on Germany. The day he became Prime Minister Fall Rot and Fall Gelb were implemented, and the Germans invaded the Low Countries and France.

It was in all the papers.

The truth is that despite the efforts, huge insights and successes of the man, Churchill was a very, very dangerous man. Whenever he got involved and had a meddle, thousands or tens of thousands usually died. Often unnecessarily.

And utter bilge.

Tell that to the British Jews who would have suffered the fate of their continental fellows. My mother was of German-Jewish ancestry. Go figure.

Churchill made the right decisions. The war wasn't his choice, his decision to continue prosecuting it was a brave one. Do you reckon the Germans would have packed it in if Britain had capitulated in 1940? Would you have wanted your antecedents to live in a Nazi-occupied Britain?

1815, just to make that point that the war was already well under way with Britain involved when Churchill became PM;).

Also, would you really rather have not fought and defeated Nazi Germany? Personally, I find that incomprehensible. It was worthing losing the empire, which we would have eventually lost anyway, to defeat Hitler and his regime. Maybe my ethnic background has something to do with that point of view but I really hope that nobody outside Stormfront would argue against the view that Nazism needed to be defeated for the sake of all of Europe and possibly beyond.

Where I would agree with you is your point that Churchill was a terrible meddler whose interventions usually resulted in disasters.

I'm not sure if it's fair to say Churchill's 'interventions usually resulted in disasters', though he was certainly prone to micro-managing. And while he must has driven his commanders mad, at least, and utterly unlike our modern political leaders, he had some history of military service, so wasn't talking COMPLETELY without any basis.

As for blaming Churchill for the war – well, that's simply nonsense. In fact, if people had listened to Churchill in the 30's, and we had dealt with Hitler robustly before Germany became so powerful, millions of lives would have been saved.

Of course – no one has learned anything from all this – I see the British Defence Secretary is cheerfully warning Iran of military action while equally cheerfully slashing the Royal Navy week by week. Insanity.

[q]In fact, if people had listened to Churchill in the 30's [/q]

1936: (pro Nazi Edward VIII would) "shine in history as the bravest and best-loved of all sovereigns who have worn the island crown"

1937: "I declare my belief that a major war is not imminent, and I still believe that there is a good chance of no major war taking place in our lifetime"

Or how about this one "If our Fleet and our Air Force are adequate, there in no need for conscription in time of peace" – May 1938!

number4, how much control did Churchill have over what happened at Munich in Sept. 1938 ?

If our Fleet and our Air Force are adequate, there in no need for conscription in time of peace

Guess they weren't adequate, were they? Oh, wait! in time of peace and Britain didn't conscript her soldiers until september 1939, after the war was declared… so it looks like Mr Churchill wasn't wrong after all, was he?

Indeed there was no need for conscription in time of peace, so it is quite difficult to see the relevance of that particular point.

As for the other quotes, well he was a politician;). He did give a lot of warnings about Nazi Germany though.

Some more info on Churchill:

Out of office and politically "in the wilderness" during the 1930s, Churchill took the lead in warning about the danger from Hitler and in campaigning for rearmament. On the outbreak of the Second World War, he was again appointed First Lord of the Admiralty.

Beginning in 1932, when he opposed those who advocated giving Germany the right to military parity with France, Churchill spoke often of the dangers of Germany's rearmament.[116] He later, particularly in The Gathering Storm, portrayed himself as being for a time, a lone voice calling on Britain to strengthen itself to counter the belligerence of Germany.[117] However Lord Lloyd was the first to so agitate.[118]

Churchill's first major speech on defence on 7 February 1934 stressed the need to rebuild the Royal Air Force and to create a Ministry of Defence; his second, on 13 July urged a renewed role for the League of Nations. These three topics remained his themes until early 1936. In 1935, he was one of the founding members of The Focus, which brought together people of differing political backgrounds and occupations who were united in seeking "the defence of freedom and peace".[124] The Focus led to the formation of the much wider Arms and the Covenant Movement in 1936.

Churchill was holidaying in Spain when the Germans reoccupied the Rhineland in February 1936, and returned to a divided Britain. The Labour opposition was adamant in opposing sanctions and the National Government was divided between advocates of economic sanctions and those who said that even these would lead to a humiliating backdown by Britain as France would not support any intervention.[125] Churchill's speech on 9 March was measured, and praised by Neville Chamberlain as constructive. But within weeks Churchill was passed over for the post of Minister for Co-ordination of Defence in favour of the Attorney General Sir Thomas Inskip.[126] Alan Taylor called this "an appointment rightly described as the most extraordinary since Caligula made his horse a consul".[127] In June 1936, Churchill organised a deputation of senior Conservatives who shared his concern to see Baldwin, Chamberlain and Halifax. He had tried to have delegates from the other two parties and later wrote, "If the leaders of the Labour and Liberal oppositions had come with us there might have been a political situation so intense as to enforce remedial action".[128] As it was the meeting achieved little, Baldwin arguing that the Government was doing all it could, given the anti-war feeling of the electorate.[citation needed]

On 12 November Churchill returned to the topic. Speaking in the Address in Reply debate, after giving some specific instances of Germany's war preparedness, he said "The Government simply cannot make up their mind or they cannot get the prime minister to make up his mind. So they go on in strange paradox, decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all powerful for impotency. And so we go on preparing more months more years precious perhaps vital for the greatness of Britain for the locusts to eat."[citation needed]

R. R. James called this one of Churchill's most brilliant speeches in this period, Baldwin's reply sounding weak and disturbing the House. The exchange gave new encouragement to the Arms and the Covenant Movement.[129]

Churchill later sought to portray himself as (to some extent) an isolated voice warning of the need to rearm against Germany. While it is true that he had a small following in the House of Commons during much of the 1930s he was given privileged information by some elements within the Government, particularly by disaffected civil servants in the War Ministry. The "Churchill group" in the later half of the decade consisted only of himself, Duncan Sandys and Brendan Bracken. It was isolated from the other main factions within the Conservative Party pressing for faster rearmament and a stronger foreign policy.[140]

The above are all extracts from Wiki

Churchill was following the news coming from Germany in detail and remained unconvinced. On October 19, 1930, he met with Prince Bismarck at the German Embassy to discuss current events. When the topic of Hitler and the Nazi Party arose, Churchill acknowledged Hitler's declarations that he had no intention of waging a war of aggression, however, as the Prince noted, Churchill "was convinced that Hitler or his followers would seize the first available opportunity to resort to armed force."

Quoted in Martin Gilbert, Winston S. Churchill Volume V Companion Part 2 Documents: The Wilderness Years, 1929-1935 (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1981), 196-197

"If our Fleet and our Air Force are adequate, there in no need for conscription in time of peace" Yep, it just wouldn't be cricket to prepare for the war you've been warning everyone about since the last one ended.

Was the RAF "adequate"? Not according to this "Moreover, it seems to me ….that the outfit of the Royal Air Force was far from satisfactory, is no longer contested by His Majesty's Government" – Churchill to the Commons, May 1938 (Hansard)

Meanwhile in Europe……
February 4
Hitler abolishes the War Ministry and creates the Oberkommando der Wehrmacht, giving him direct control of the German military

March – German troops occupy Austria

May – In a conference at the Reichs Chancellery, Hitler declares his decision to destroy Czechoslovakia by military force, and orders the immediate mobilization of 96 Wehrmacht divisions.

But no need to call up the British Army, oh no……

You won't find too many fans of Churchill in the WWII generation of Australia. Nor in those who have looked at the diplomatic row that was required before he'd release his grip on Australian forces in the Med and UK, so they could return to defend Australia.

Telling Australia that the UK would liberate the country if the Japanese invaded, but only after he'd beaten the Germans, was met with disbelief. Using that to justify his decision not to return any of Australia's forces to defend against the Japanese turned the disbelief into anger. Basically Churchill wanted to keep the Australian forces fighting in the MTO, or (after the fall of Malaya/Singapore) used to defend Burma. Those intentions led to a high level diplomatic row that saw the Australian PM, Curtin, order the return of the bulk of Australian forces in the MTO (all army and the major RAN fleet units).

If Churchill had had his way, in fact, 7 Division (2nd AIF), which lacked any heavy weapons (had to be left in North Africa) and logistics support, would have landed in Rangoon a week or so before it fell. Churchill sent the convoy returning the division to Australia orders, to divert them "temporarily". The diplomatic stoush that followed saw 7DIV returned to Australia before deploying to PNG, in time to assist in the defeat of the Japanese on the Kokoda Track and at Milne Bay, Buna and Gona.

The argument that the Australian forces were desperately needed in North Africa is rather poor when you consider the forces Churchill kept in Britain, including the whole Canadian army contingent, to do what? Defend against German invasion?

His actions and obstinacy about releasing Australia's forces are the main reason that Australia turned to the US as our main ally- and have since maintained that outlook (Sir Robert Menzies and Viscount Slim attempting to turn back the clock notwithstanding).

However, I do acknowledge that his leadership was instrumental in keeping the British and Empire forces fighting when the rest of the world expected them to make peace within weeks of France falling or the defeats in Greece and Crete. He was a great British leader. But in Australia will always be remembered for Gallipoli, Greece, Crete, Malaya/Singapore, his refusal to release 2AIF, RAAF and RAN assets and his whining to Roosevelt, in a semi-successful attempt to cut US support for Australia's stance against his policies.

Just an alternative view of the man.

Dal.