"The Winston Churchill Myth..." Topic
25 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please do not use bad language on the forums.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the WWII Media Message Board
Areas of InterestWorld War Two on the Land World War Two at Sea World War Two in the Air
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Showcase ArticleYou can pick up a toy blimp in the local toy department for less than a dollar.
Featured Workbench ArticleMal Wright experiments to find a better way to mount aircraft for wargaming.
Featured Book Review
|
Tango01 | 18 Jan 2015 11:18 p.m. PST |
"Anyone sentient at the time remembers how the nation stopped at the news of Sir Winston Churchill's death, and engaged in an act of homage to the man who had led the salvation of Britain from Hitler and the Nazis. In many ways the act of homage has never ended, and there are, indeed, perfectly good reasons why it should not. Britain did face a mortal threat in 1940. Churchill, whose career up to that point had been littered with catastrophic mistakes and misjudgements, and was then aged 65, had nonetheless led the minority that correctly understood the menace of Hitler and the dangers of disarmament and appeasement. The two British prime ministers of the late 1930s, Stanley Baldwin and Neville Chamberlain, chose to disregard him: partly because they had inherited a sense of Tory isolationism that made them want, above all things, not to involve themselves in quarrels with Hitler, but partly because they thought Churchill was simply on another of his bizarre hobbyhorses, and that his latest cranky obsession would end in the usual personal humiliation for him. However, the humiliation would, in this instance, be theirs. Churchill had read Hitler and the Nazi threat exactly right, and the urgent need for national survival was perfectly suited to his greatest talents—those of the showman and orator, rather than the strategist. Once he had faced down his rival for the premiership, the appeaser Lord Halifax, he used those talents to articulate the spirit of anti-defeatism on behalf of the British people more effectively, passionately, and sincerely than anyone else could possibly have done. He knew only too well how many in the British establishment were sympathetic to, or complacent about, Hitler and felt no need to challenge him. He foresaw the catastrophe that would ensue if Britain did not oppose the Nazi menace and, even worse, if she were invaded. He inspired the physical heroism of countless others and used these examples to motivate the civilian masses. In several speeches in the summer of 1940, when what he memorably called the finest hour was in fact the nation's darkest hour, his rhetorical and literary gifts created a liturgy of hope and faith in a triumph for civilization and freedom against barbarism. At the moment when Britain, and the idea of liberty, needed it most, he provided the leadership without which both would have been sunk. He drove a people first to survival, and then to victory…" Full article here link Amicalement Armand |
artaxerxes | 19 Jan 2015 1:05 a.m. PST |
This is actually a very good and considered article. |
goragrad | 19 Jan 2015 1:07 a.m. PST |
Interesting. I disagree with the conclusion, but interesting. Remember watching his funeral on television here in the US. Even then I was aware of his impact on history. |
FreddBloggs | 19 Jan 2015 2:59 a.m. PST |
But it has to be remembered it was the 'appeaser' Chamberlain who rebuild the Armed Forces during this period. Without his modernisation plans the RAF would have not been in a position to fight the BoB never mind win it. Churchill inherited his hard work and planning, and the time he had bought. In 1940 though Churchill was the right man in the right place. |
olicana | 19 Jan 2015 5:38 a.m. PST |
Churchill was a great political leader. He kept the people of Britain in the war during the dark years by giving them hope by the shear force of his character. As a military leader, mainly due to his notion that something, anything, should always be done to enforce the appearance of active resistance, he made several grave mistakes that cost Britain thousands of lives during those dark years. IMHO, one of his mistakes almost cost Britain, and perhaps the world, the war. His decision to remove troops to Greece from the Middle East (inc. Egypt) to support an undeniably lost cause, for purely political reasons, almost cost Britain the loss of Egypt. If that had happened, Britain might have handed Germany Persia and the oil resources it craved, and it might have led to a different German strategy in Russia (no need for Stalingrad). It was an awful strategic blunder. Churchill was very lucky. After the war the people of Britain voted against him because they knew that to do otherwise would just put things back to how things had been before the war. After WW1, that had happened, the 'war to end all wars' had changed virtually nothing for the working classes, and the British people were not willing to risk that happening again. It was not a vote to punish Churchill, who the people loved, it was a vote against the rest of the 'old Etonians' that ran the Tory party – as they do to this day. |
Tango01 | 19 Jan 2015 10:52 a.m. PST |
Glad you enjoyed it my freind. Agree with Olicana. Amicalement Armand |
AussieAndy | 19 Jan 2015 11:08 a.m. PST |
I read the first two volumes of William Manchester's biography a few years ago, only to find that Manchester's health didn't allow him to finish the final volume. Now I will never know how WW2 ends. Australians (and, I suspect, other colonials) had no reason to love Churchill. As Gallipolli, the Western Front and Singapore showed, we were entirely expendable. |
Jemima Fawr | 19 Jan 2015 12:56 p.m. PST |
Australians were minority contingents in all three of those examples. What's your point? |
Dal Gavan | 19 Jan 2015 3:33 p.m. PST |
G'day, Jemima. Australians were minority contingents in all three of those examples. What's your point? [boring history] Churchill's unpopularity here (by the few that know a little about pre-1985 history) is based upon a number factors, one of which is the belief that Australian troops were "wasted" as cannon fodder. Like many enduring myths there's a small germ of truth hidden in the mythology, and there's also a lot of stroking the national ego. In other words, nationalist near-claptrap. Part of that belief comes from Bishop Mannix, Catholic Archbishop of Melbourne and Irish nationalist, and his opposition to the Conscription Referenda ( link ) in WWI. A lot comes from the troops of the AIF and 2AIF, who saw themselves as being wasted (just like everyone else). Painting the British government and military leadership carelessly wasteful of Australian lives, and opposing Australia's involvement in a European war between corrupt, oppressive regimes on the other side of the world, was one the more strident arguments Mannix and the anti-war groups used to support their case. The sectarian divisions sparked by those referenda, and the political mythology used in the arguments to support/reject them, were still felt in Australia into the 1950's. Then there's the Curtin-Churchill political crisis in 1942, which is where the real distrust (and hence dislike) was sown. Some of the Opposition, chiefly former PM Menzies, were strongly opposed to loosening ties with the UK, let alone cutting them (which is the end result many Curtin's party were hoping for). Churchill's role in Gallipoli, Greece-Crete and Singapore, and then his opposing the return of Australian forces to defend against the Japanese, were used to politically bludgeon Menzies and the other Imperialists into ineffectiveness. It justified the curtailment of the EATS in Australia, the diversion of aircraft being built for the RAF to the RAAF and the lifting of prices on goods exported to the UK and British forces in the CBI above previously agreed upon levels. Churchill's role in getting Gallipoli up was emphasised as typifying how the Evil British had always bent Australia over a barrel and…… Churchill is still unpopular with a lot of those Aussies who lived through WWII and the early '50's (food rationing in Australia, because food was being sent to the UK, was a very selfish aggravation to many Australians). They won't (and nor do I think they should) forgive Churchill for his refusal to release Australian forces when Curtin asked, nor for the way Churchill fought Curtin when Curtin then demanded their return. Nobody knew in February 1942 that the Japanese did not intend to invade Australia- academics still argue the point today- and Australians rightly thought the AIF, RAAF and RAN ships, aircraft and troops should be brought back to stop the Japanese. Churchill's declaration that Britain needed the troops more, and that if Australia was invaded the British Empire would assist in freeing Australia from the Japanese, once Germany was defeated, was met with disbelief and hatred. Churchill then tried to divert the returning 7 DIV into Rangoon (they would have landed and gone straight into the Japanese bag if Curtin had not been able to have the convoy ordered back on course for Australia) and then diverted a brigade to garrison Ceylon- all while holding big reserves in the UK (eg the Canadian army). This was seen a simple duplicity on Churchill's part (hard to argue that), and the nascent distrust hardened into "fact". So while I agree that Churchill was a superb leader and was just the man for the job to push the UK's war effort, I also understand why he was seen as a betrayer and is despised many in Australia. However, nor do I see Curtin as "The Man Who Saved Australia". The return of the AIF, the RAN-owned ships and the two non-EATS RAAF squadrons could have been handled better, had Curtin not been a moral coward and party apparatchik. [/boring history] Cheers. Dal. |
Dal Gavan | 19 Jan 2015 7:06 p.m. PST |
PS, just to clarify: Yes, I think there's some good foundation for the feelings towards Churchill in Australia. However for political purposes, from authors pushing their agenda and due to prejudice, those sentiments have been played upon, encouraged and exaggerated. Australians also shouldn't forget that FDR backed Churchill over the return of the Australian forces- something Curtin's government played down at the time (it didn't fit with the "we look to America" sentiment he was selling). Churchill was a great leader for Britain, at a time and in circumstances where someone like him was much needed. The spat with Australia should not detract from that, but does show a side that perhaps British historians have played down or swept into a corner. The man governed for the benefit of the UK, as he was elected to do. He was ruthless and would willingly sacrifice one of the former Dominions for even a slight increase in strength for the war with Germany (in Australia's case four divisions- one captured in Singapore-, 12 ships, 36 aircraft and a couple of thousand RAN & RAAF personnel serving individually in British squadrons and ships). Just as any Australian politician would choose do, if the circumstances were reversed. Cheers. Dal. |
Jemima Fawr | 20 Jan 2015 7:21 a.m. PST |
Thanks for the explanation, Dal! :) |
AussieAndy | 20 Jan 2015 8:03 a.m. PST |
Thanks Dal for all that. I would just add that (1) the consequences for those Australian troops returning from the Middle East that were diverted to Singapore were pretty dire (Changi, the Burma Railway and all that) and many here still have connections to people who died or were badly affected by their experiences at the hands of the Japanese; and (2) Churchill never overcame the impression that he was a military adventurer who was rather casual about the consequences for others of his decisions. I am not sure why you are so down on Curtin. Regards |
Jemima Fawr | 20 Jan 2015 2:25 p.m. PST |
"the consequences for those Australian troops returning from the Middle East that were diverted to Singapore were pretty dire (Changi, the Burma Railway and all that) and many here still have connections to people who died or were badly affected by their experiences at the hands of the Japanese" My point was that Churchill didn't specifically pick on the Australians. The majority of the troops captured at Singapore were not Australian. I'd also add that a victory in Malaya/Singapore would undoubtedly have helped defend Australia from further Japanese advances. |
Fatman | 21 Jan 2015 11:33 a.m. PST |
Yeah RMD but that doesn't matter Evil Churchill/Pommies using the poor old Aussies is an undeniable "truth" to some Australians. No matter what these nasty inconvenient facts say. Of course the problem with this it detracts from the true story and belittles the actual achievements of the ANZAC forces. If you haven't already read it, and I am sure you have, I would recommend "Zombie Myths of the Australian Military, 10 Myths which will not Die" edited by Craig Stockings. Funnily enough Singapore isn't one of the myths covered. Before our Australian friends go apoplectic can I just say I am in no way denigrating the efforts of Australian servicemen in WW II, or WW I for that matter, their reputation for courage and skill is well deserved. Oh and we Brit's, especially my Scottish brethren, are just as capable of ignoring facts when it comes to what we "know" about the war. Fatman |
Dal Gavan | 21 Jan 2015 11:18 p.m. PST |
G'day. JF, my pleasure. I'd also add that a victory in Malaya/Singapore would undoubtedly have helped defend Australia from further Japanese advances. I'm not as sure about that. Singapore could just as easily have been isolated- as was later done to the Japanese at Rabaul, etc- while the Japanese continued into the Dutch East Indies, the Philippines and Micronesia. It was a fortress that relied upon naval power to be viable, and naval power of sufficient strength would not be forthcoming until the USN sorted itself out after Pearl. As for the 8 DIV main body that was Australia's contribution, if they'd spent more time training and less mounting provincial palace guards and playing the Raj, and had a 1/2 way competent commander (Moreshead or Vasey instead of Bennett) they'd have performed a lot better. Andy, 7 DIV were diverted to Rangoon, not Singapore (8 DIV main body was in Malaya/Singapore), and would have arrived just as the Japanese were preparing to take the city. Sans their heavy weapons and transport, 7 DIV was unlikely to tip the balance in favour of the defenders, methinks. Individual units were also diverted to bolster garrisons in the Dutch East Indies, so went into the bag there. Elements of two brigades of 6 DIV transitting through Colombo were held, after Curtin finally acquiesced, as a garrison for Ceylon. They didn't return to Australia until August 1942. 9 DIV remained in the MTO, taking part in Alemein, before returning. I am not sure why you are so down on Curtin. Not so much down on him as sick of him being portrayed as Australia's saviour and a flawless man of integrity. The facts speak otherwise. He buckled to the state premiers and allowed large garrisons left to "defend" the capitals, when those troops were needed in PNG. He also could not stand up to either Blamey or MacArthur. In particular he allowed them implement unconstitutional measures in regards to freedom of the press, under the guise of OPSEC requirements. Both those self-licking ice-creams then used their power over the press to bolster their own reputations. More tellingly, he should have had Bennett arrested when he left 8DIV to be captured in Singapore and fled back to Australia. Even generals weren't immune to the provisions of the DLM, so Bennett should have been charged with Desertion under AMR 203 para 22 and then at least stripped of his commission, if not gaoled. However the CGS boys' club were able to stand up to Curtin and protect Bennett. They even got him promoted to LTGEN. As for being an apparatchik, he ousted Menzies (no great loss, that) and then reconstituted the war cabinet on party lines, rather than doing as the British and US had done and choosing the (apparently) best people for different posts, regardless of party affiliation. Though the pollies we had then weren't much chop- about the same as we have currently, unfortunately- there was talent on the Opposition benches that could have been better used, instead of the factional hacks that filled some spots. Similarly he had the power to bring the unions into line, particularly the wharfies, miners and steel workers, but failed to act. By late 1942 theft on the wharves was endemic and damaged equipment was at a level that resembled deliberate sabotage, rather than simple incompetence. Chifley, another ALP PM, showed what could be done when you put the country first and the party second, when he took on the miners. Curtin rarely, if ever, challenged the union bosses, despite their disruptions to the war effort. Fatman, harsh. But reasonably spot on. Peter Fitzsimons, for example, is still a much better Rugby lock than historian. But he does understand how to beat the ANZAC Drum for emotion, myth and profit. Of course the problem with this it detracts from the true story and belittles the actual achievements of the ANZAC forces. Exactly! Well put. Cheers. Dal. |
CampyF | 23 Jan 2015 3:36 a.m. PST |
Churchill was an old fashioned imperialist. The Empire existed for the benefit of Great Britain. It was not a two way street. England's war with Germany was paramount to all else. Great Britain spent the war ignoring the needs of the Empire, only acting when the needs of the mother country were threatened. She waited far too long to reinforce the Pacific frontier, practically wrote off Australia and New Zealand, let millions of Indians starve. Two world wars had taught the colonials all they needed to know about war. World war II taught them the British could be beaten. I don't think England could have kept her empire it she decided to fight for it. Churchill completely failed to understand that. The days when a few Englishmen with guns could rule a country were over. |
Dal Gavan | 23 Jan 2015 4:13 a.m. PST |
G'day, CampyF. I don't think England could have kept her empire it she decided to fight for it. Churchill completely failed to understand that. I disagree, mate, with the bit I put in bold. Churchill was an unrepentant imperialist, but he also had a strong streak of pragmatism and was able to face realities. During his second stint as PM he set in place the means for independence of Malaya-Singapore, the Sudan and the Gold Coast. He also evacuated the Suez, after gaining an agreement with the Egyptians to leave it open for shipping (not surprisingly the Egyptians then turned around and nationalised it), and started the processes that McMillan (sp?) would use to give most of the remaining African colonies independence by the mid 60's. However, I don't think he did it for altruistic reasons. He recognised that keeping the colonies was an expense that the UK could no longer afford. Recognising that, he's likely to have fought against keeping the empire, rather than to preserve it. At least he made some effort toleave the former colonies with a functional government system and administration, which can't be said for the unseemly scramble and mess left when Atlee bailed out of the Indian subcontinent. Not me favourite bloke, but I can see why he is a hero to the UK. Cheers. Dal. |
AussieAndy | 23 Jan 2015 11:09 p.m. PST |
I can remember when my mother finally got to visit the UK and found herself in the "others" queue at Heathrow. She said that she wished that she could have back all the food parcels and pocket money that she sent to Britain after the war. Suspect that the thing that gets up the noses of we colonials is that Churchill and his ilk preached the mutual obligations of Empire, but the reality was rather different. It was the right of the Australian Government to decide where its troops went. |
Jemima Fawr | 25 Jan 2015 5:23 a.m. PST |
"those self-licking ice-creams" :) Make a note of that Darling. I want to use it in conversation. |
Jemima Fawr | 25 Jan 2015 5:25 a.m. PST |
"let millions of Indians starve" Burma was the ricebowl of India. There was the small matter of a Japanese occupation… Concentration camp victims and other severely malnourished displaced persons in Europe circa 1945 were fed using 'Bengal Famine Mixture', which was a high-energy gloop developed by the British for relieving the Bengal Famine of 1943. That could not have possibly happened if the British had just 'let' millions starve. |
Jemima Fawr | 25 Jan 2015 5:27 a.m. PST |
"I can remember when my mother finally got to visit the UK and found herself in the "others" queue at Heathrow. She said that she wished that she could have back all the food parcels and pocket money that she sent to Britain after the war." FFS And which queue do British people join when visiting Australia? |
Dal Gavan | 26 Jan 2015 3:10 a.m. PST |
Andy, I can remember when my mother finally got to visit the UK and found herself in the "others" queue at Heathrow. She said that she wished that she could have back all the food parcels and pocket money that she sent to Britain after the war. It wasn't the British people that made that decision, it was the British government. (As with the ACT getting their own government, when 87% of the voters said they didn't want one- the pollies knowingly and deliberately acted against the wishes of the people, for their own political purposes- pretty much SOP.) It was the people that made all the aircrew, soldiers and sailors from the former colonies welcome, shared their homes, meals, etc. So the food parcels did some good, I'd say. The pocket money probably got collected by the government. JF, And which queue do British people join when visiting Australia? Answer: "Whingeing Pommy B……s", of course. Cheers. Dal. |
Jemima Fawr | 26 Jan 2015 10:33 a.m. PST |
|
CampyF | 27 Jan 2015 7:54 a.m. PST |
"Concentration camp victims and other severely malnourished displaced persons in Europe circa 1945 were fed using 'Bengal Famine Mixture', which was a high-energy gloop developed by the British for relieving the Bengal Famine of 1943. That could not have possibly happened if the British had just 'let' millions starve." By August 1943 Churchill refused to release shipping to send food to India.[65][66][67] Initially during the famine he was more concerned with the civilians of Nazi occupied Greece (who were also suffering from a famine) compared with the Bengalis,[68] noting that the "starvation of anyhow underfed Bengalis is less serious than that of sturdy Greeks".[ |
Jemima Fawr | 30 Jan 2015 6:17 a.m. PST |
I imagine that the fact that we were at the height of the U-Boat War might also have had something to do with the refusal to release shipping. But don't let facts get in the way of a good theory. |
|