PDA

View Full Version : Historical Debate: Churchill: Leader or Loser



XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 09:33 PM
I was brought up to believe that Churchill through his wartime leadership saved Britian from defeat, then helpded enormously by the USA , pushed the Nazi's to defeat.

I have read a number of historical books and now believe that Churchill caused some of the worst disasters to befall the British nation during World War2, Just as he had in World War 1.

Churchill was almost entirely to blame for the early defeat in North Africa in 1941 at the hands of the newly arrived Afrika Corp because he ordered a large part of the British Army to Greece in a futile bid to stop the German Panzers.

Also Churchill caused the defeat and disaster at Singapore by redirecting aircraft and ammunition that should have been sent to Malaya but was infact sent to Russia (Churchill sent 450 Aircraft to Russia before the japs invaded Malaya) instead.
Churchill you see didn't want to upset the Japs and was frightened that they attack Malaya while Britain was fighting the Germans. Which is exactly what they did! Even though his commanders in Malaya had requested re-inforcements.

Churchill also planned that great campaign in Norway 1940 that turned out to be the first of a series of disasters to befall Britain.

Then there was Oran when he sent the might Royal navy to destroy his allies the French, because he thought the Germans might make the French navy attack the atlantic Convoys. What a nonsense, as if any French sailor would have allowed his ship to sail against Royal navy becaus ethe Germans had asked. I bet the French would rather have scuttled their fleet first.

Infact Churchill's influence in military matters was only stopped by Montgomery before the battle of El-Alamein when he refused to take Churchill's "advice".

Churchill had one last bad decision that was listened to and that was the invasion of Italy and the subsequent Italian Invasion that bogged down many troops in the best defensive terrain in Europe.

Oh almost forgot one other disgrace which was at the end of the war when Churchill allowed 40000 captured Russians who had fought for the Germans to be handed back to the Russians to face certain death even though the Geneva Convention forbade such a thing.

To me Churchill's only finest hour was to keep Britain in the War in 1940 and then plead with the USA to save Britain.

maybe you disagree?

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 09:33 PM
I was brought up to believe that Churchill through his wartime leadership saved Britian from defeat, then helpded enormously by the USA , pushed the Nazi's to defeat.

I have read a number of historical books and now believe that Churchill caused some of the worst disasters to befall the British nation during World War2, Just as he had in World War 1.

Churchill was almost entirely to blame for the early defeat in North Africa in 1941 at the hands of the newly arrived Afrika Corp because he ordered a large part of the British Army to Greece in a futile bid to stop the German Panzers.

Also Churchill caused the defeat and disaster at Singapore by redirecting aircraft and ammunition that should have been sent to Malaya but was infact sent to Russia (Churchill sent 450 Aircraft to Russia before the japs invaded Malaya) instead.
Churchill you see didn't want to upset the Japs and was frightened that they attack Malaya while Britain was fighting the Germans. Which is exactly what they did! Even though his commanders in Malaya had requested re-inforcements.

Churchill also planned that great campaign in Norway 1940 that turned out to be the first of a series of disasters to befall Britain.

Then there was Oran when he sent the might Royal navy to destroy his allies the French, because he thought the Germans might make the French navy attack the atlantic Convoys. What a nonsense, as if any French sailor would have allowed his ship to sail against Royal navy becaus ethe Germans had asked. I bet the French would rather have scuttled their fleet first.

Infact Churchill's influence in military matters was only stopped by Montgomery before the battle of El-Alamein when he refused to take Churchill's "advice".

Churchill had one last bad decision that was listened to and that was the invasion of Italy and the subsequent Italian Invasion that bogged down many troops in the best defensive terrain in Europe.

Oh almost forgot one other disgrace which was at the end of the war when Churchill allowed 40000 captured Russians who had fought for the Germans to be handed back to the Russians to face certain death even though the Geneva Convention forbade such a thing.

To me Churchill's only finest hour was to keep Britain in the War in 1940 and then plead with the USA to save Britain.

maybe you disagree?

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 09:37 PM
Wow sandbag_69, you just love controversy don't you. This will most likely end up locked because of the flames that will follow. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif What a shame.

He made some mistakes and some good decisions. He was human just like any other leader.



Message Edited on 10/12/0301:38PM by BlackPhenix

BlitzPig_Rock
10-12-2003, 09:44 PM
Well - we have to give this thread at least a fighting chance.

Maybe if someone knows a list of WC`s acheivements, that might help balance the list of mistakes or failures.

Lets remember to keep it civil though /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif




<center>http://mysite.freeserve.com/bpstuff/bobharris_image.jpg
<center><FONT COLOR="Red">UBI/IL2 Forum Moderator</FONT>
http://www.ubi.com/US/CommunityZone/Forums/guidelines

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 09:49 PM
Napolean said the moral is to the physical as three to one.

Winston gave great moral.



"Official Lancaster Whiner"

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 10:02 PM
As an individual leader, who's success are we judging his failing against?

We could compile similar but more depressing pictures of all the leaders of his era.

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 10:06 PM
S! All!

Winston Churchill was one of the greatest national leaders in the history of mankind. It's very easy to look backwards and find mistakes in war, but let us not forget that Winston Churchill had the courage to stand against Nazi Germany when most of the world thought England would fall. Churchill's 'Liquid Courage' speech was in my opinion one of the greatest speeches of all time - right up there with Reagan's "Tear Down This Wall" speech.

Some people are defined by their times. Great men, like Winston Churchill, DEFINE their times.

And let's not forget that Churchill had one of the largest militaries in the world helping him with all of his great defeats. Blaming Churchill for the early defeats in Northern Africa takes a tremendous amount of credit away from Rommel.

Wars are not won by brilliance on the battlefield. Wars are won by having the will to fight. Winston Churchill personified that will.

RAF74_Wall-dog

<a href="http://www.doghousecomputing.com/scorchedearth">http://www.doghousecomputing.com/scorchedearth/images/parsersmall.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 10:11 PM
I think the greatest contribution of Churchill was his negotiations /w Stalin in regard to post Nazi Europe. While their dividing of 'Influence' in eastern and southern Europe is drastic even criminal in many ways; I think things would have been far worse w/ Chamberlain and Roosevelt left to deal w/ Stalin.

Also, pre-Pearl Harbor, WC went to great links and had great success w/ acquiring support from a reluctant US.

Churchill's skills centered on language; his prowess as an orator and writer helped in many ways to brace GB's morale thorough the worst of the war. His historical insight also served him in these regards.

militarily, WC has many flaws, but his strength was diplomacy, politics and unwavering determination to see the end of Nazi Germany.

<center> http://webpages.charter.net/Stick_Fiend/images/crazyPilot.gif
<font size= 2>

<a href="http://webpages.charter.net/Stick_Fiend/"><font size= 2> Stick_Fiend Home<a/><font size= 2>
"Altitude, speed, maneuver, fire!"-The "formula of Terror" of Aleksandr Pokryshkin, Three times awarded the rank of Hero of the Soviet Union

<center> http://webpages.charter.net/Stick_Fiend/images/crazyPilot.gif
<font size= 2>

<a href="http://webpages.charter.net/Stick_Fiend/"><font size= 2> Stick_Fiend Home<a/><font size= 2>
"Altitude, speed, maneuver, fire!"-The "formula of Terror" of Aleksandr Pokryshkin, Three times awarded the rank of Hero of the Soviet Union

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 10:15 PM
- maybe you disagree?

100%


<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

RichardI
10-12-2003, 10:40 PM
What an insult.
Not only was Winston Churchill a great leader, he was a great man.

It was, truly, the greatest generation and he was it's icon and leader..

PFFFTTTTTT to you

Rich

<Center>http://www.ghosts.com/images/postimages/THUNDERBOLT.jpg <Center>I've got 140 109's cornered over Berlin!

Buzz_25th
10-12-2003, 10:51 PM
Churchill....1

Hitler.......0

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25th_Buzz
<center>
http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/foto1/drew2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 10:54 PM
sandbag_69 wrote:
- Churchill was almost entirely to blame for the early
- defeat in North Africa in 1941 at the hands of the
- newly arrived Afrika Corp because he ordered a large
- part of the British Army to Greece in a futile bid
- to stop the German Panzers.

I knew this one would come up /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Yes, you're right. In a strict military sense it made no sense to take troops from the army which had given the Italians such a hard time. And yes, they probably would have kicked the axis out of North Africa before the Afrika Korps arrived. However, Churchill believed the Greeks had to be helped somehow, even if the attempt was futile. Had something to do with Athens being the birthplace of democracy too, I think. Good reasons to help? Maybe not. But would it have been morally right to do nothing? Such thinking probably figured prominently in Churchills mind.

Also like to point out that one German general, interviewed after the war, thought it the critical point in WW2, because the help Britain did provide to Greece delayed Barbarossa just enough to deny the Germans Moscow in the autumn of that year.

- Also Churchill caused the defeat and disaster at
- Singapore by redirecting aircraft and ammunition
- that should have been sent to Malaya but was infact
- sent to Russia (Churchill sent 450 Aircraft to
- Russia before the japs invaded Malaya) instead.
- Churchill you see didn't want to upset the Japs and
- was frightened that they attack Malaya while Britain
- was fighting the Germans. Which is exactly what they
- did! Even though his commanders in Malaya had
- requested re-inforcements.

Russia was already in the war and fighting on our side. It made sense to help them rather than reinforce a region where there might be no war if the enemy wasn't antagonized. Britain couldn't be strong everywhere, or even anywhere at that time. It was a risk, certainly, but the ac were certain to be of some use in the USSR. They might have been wasted in the Far East. Events probably prove that they would have achieved far more in the Far East. This is also another case where you can perhaps see Churchill's desire to be of some assistance to an ally, even when this was not obviously in Britain's best military interest. Would you have sent the ac to the war zone or peaceful area?

- Churchill also planned that great campaign in Norway
- 1940 that turned out to be the first of a series of
- disasters to befall Britain.

Again, was it better the leave Norway to its fate? The Royal Navy will tell you that they won the Battle of Britain by giving the Kreigsmarine such a battering in the Norway campaign

- Then there was Oran when he sent the might Royal
- navy to destroy his allies the French, because he
- thought the Germans might make the French navy
- attack the atlantic Convoys. What a nonsense, as if
- any French sailor would have allowed his ship to
- sail against Royal navy because the Germans had
- asked. I bet the French would rather have scuttled
- their fleet first.

But they didn't scuttle their fleet and Vichy troops did fight the Anglo-Americans at some places in North Africa during the Torch landings.

- Churchill had one last bad decision that was
- listened to and that was the invasion of Italy and
- the subsequent Italian Invasion that bogged down
- many troops in the best defensive terrain in Europe.

Yes, Churchill was still trying to prove his 'soft underbelly of Europe' theory from WW1 I think. However, the experience gained during several amphibious operations came in very handy during Overlord. Also the Sicilly landings came at the height of Zitadelle, causing Hausser's SS Pz Corps to be transfered to Italy.

- Oh almost forgot one other disgrace which was at the
- end of the war when Churchill allowed 40000 captured
- Russians who had fought for the Germans to be handed
- back to the Russians to face certain death even
- though the Geneva Convention forbade such a thing.

Yes indeed. Have you read 'Victims of Yalta,' which tells the whole sorry story? But Truman and other senior British and American politicians / statesmen are just as guilty as Churchill in this.

- To me Churchill's only finest hour was to keep
- Britain in the War in 1940 and then plead with the
- USA to save Britain.
-
- maybe you disagree?
-
Yes I do /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif although to a certain extent all your points are valid ones and I'm partly playing 'devil's advocate.' It's often said that wars are won by the side which makes fewest mistakes. Churchill, like every other leader, made some mistakes. But he made fewer than Hitler. If his mistakes were greater than some other leaders, then so too was his inspiration. And at a time when no one else in the free world was prepared to, he stood up, put 2 fingers up to Adolf and said, 'F*** you!' /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Kernow
249 IAP

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 11:01 PM
Even as an American I've always be fond of Churchill(whose mother was American,btw). He DID seem to listen to the opinions of his friends over his military adivisers,but he was a rock-solid central leader and figure for the Britons. He boosted their moral and stuck to his guns even when all hope seemed lost. This is why he was such a great man and why I have such respect for him. Oh,and I LOVE his salty humor.../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

47|FC
http://rangerring.com/wwii/p-47.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 11:15 PM
Oboe wrote:
- As an individual leader, who's success are we
- judging his failing against?
-
- We could compile similar but more depressing
- pictures of all the leaders of his era.
-
-
i am judging him against his decisions that he made, that caused so many defeats for his country.

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 11:23 PM
as for 'pleading' with the USA to save britain, it was as much roosevelt pleading with the american public... roosevelt was very keen to join the war long before pearl harbour because he recognized german hegemony in Europe was bad for US interests, just as it was bad for britain's... International Politics is all about power and interests- if you have an interest and the power to defend it then you do. morality has very little to do with it at all.

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 11:32 PM
I can't imagine anyone who could have replaced Churchill as such an effective wartime leader. A definate case of being in the right place at the right time. But don't forget that the British electorate overwhelmingly rejected him as a peacetime leader in 1945.

<center>http://www.uploadit.org/files/150903-Screensig.jpg

Whirlwind Whiner - First Of The Few

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 11:33 PM
Churchill's two greatest achievments:

1. Persuading the British people to fight on against Germany after the fall of France, when it would have been easier to come to a negotiated truce. Which would have left Germany to concentrate on Russia and only fight on one front.

2. Persuading President Roosevelt to commit the American military forces to fight against Germany at the same time as Japan, instead of winning the Pacific war and only then turning the USA's attention to Europe. By which time Germany may well have had the atomic bomb as well.

He did make some purely military blunders, but his recognition of the threat from Nazi Germany long before most other people, and his unfaltering resolve to fight against it, make him one of the greatest leaders of the 20th Century or of any period in history.

Without Winston Churchill the world would have been a very different place today.



<CENTER>


<IMG SRC="http://www.apqa16.dsl.pipex.com/airplane1.3.jpg"


Ladies & gentlemen, this is the captain speaking. Thankyou for choosing to fly Mandarin Airlines. Those passengers sitting on the left-hand side of the aeroplane please make yourselves comfortable. Those sitting on the right... please look to your left!

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 11:34 PM
RAF74_Wall-dog wrote:
- S! All!
-
- Winston Churchill was one of the greatest national
- leaders in the history of mankind.

Maybe in your opinion. Roosevelt was 10 times the leader the Bulldog was.

- It's very easy
- to look backwards and find mistakes in war, but let
- us not forget that Winston Churchill had the courage
- to stand against Nazi Germany when most of the world
- thought England would fall.

As i said this was his finest hour.

Churchill's 'Liquid
- Courage' speech was in my opinion one of the
- greatest speeches of all time - right up there with
- Reagan's "Tear Down This Wall" speech.

Great orator's dont make great leaders. Hitler was a great orator too; but a disaster of a leader.

-
- Some people are defined by their times. Great men,
- like Winston Churchill, DEFINE their times.
- And let's not forget that Churchill had one of the
- largest militaries in the world helping him with all
- of his great defeats. Blaming Churchill for the
- early defeats in Northern Africa takes a tremendous
- amount of credit away from Rommel.

Rommel should have been defeated easily. 2 and a half panzer divisions + the Italians should have been easy meat for the Western Desert Force if Churchill hadn't stepped in and taken half the force away to Greece.

-
- Wars are not won by brilliance on the battlefield.
- Wars are won by having the will to fight. Winston
- Churchill personified that will.

His fighting spirit was great so was the average Tommy's, but they paid the price for Churchill's ineptitude.

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 11:36 PM
tagert wrote:
-- maybe you disagree?
-
- 100%
-

Why????????

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 11:40 PM
Hmmmm, was it your intention to **** the great man off or is that just the way you are?

Was there anything positive to say about Churchill in these books of your's or have you conveniently forgot to mention them.

No, well heres a few just in case:

GOVERNOR GEORGE W. BUSH
Churchill was the century's best example of how individuals can shape history rather than being shaped by it. The force of his will and his words gave courage to his country and saved the West. Yet it was also Churchill who, after World War II, discerned the dangers to come from communist tyranny. Just as he defined the moral issues of the 1930s and 1940s, he defined the great moral challenge that would shape America's role in the world up to our own time. Totalitarianism was the greatest evil of the 20th century, and Churchill its most able adversary.

SENATOR JOHN McCAIN
Like all of us, Churchill had his flaws. But like few other men, he was a man discerning enough to recognize a cause bigger than himself and honorable enough to devote his life to it. He saved not just Britain but Western civilization. In doing so, he earned for himself the tribute he paid to the fighters of the Royal Air Force in 1940: "Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few."

JOHN O'SULLIVAN
Churchill tried to strangle Lenin's totalitarianism in its cradle in 1919; he warned the world of Hitler's totalitarianism from the mid-1930s onward; and with Roosevelt he led the democracies to victory over Nazism. But totalitarianism did not perish in 1945, and Churchill was the first to warn in his Fulton speech that Stalin's Iron Curtain was descending over Europe. That speech persuaded America to resist this second totalitarian plague as it had resisted the first. And, once again, Churchill was a leader in that battle until his retirement in 1955. Churchill not only fought for humane values; he embodied them as a powerful writer, orator, and historian--and as a statesman of rare magnanimity. Had he not lived, the world would be a darker and crueller place.

THOMAS SOWELL
If one man ever pulled a whole nation through a crisis that threatened its very existence, that man was Churchill....The inspiration of this great man not only saved Britain; the disruption of the Nazi timetable for conquest bought time for a woefully unprepared United States finally to begin building up its military defenses. It is enough of a claim to historic greatness for a man to have saved his own country. Churchill may have saved civilization.

NASHVILLE TENNESSEAN
He was on the world stage for over six decades. He was a reformer who proposed social welfare in Great Britain two decades before FDR's New Deal. He headed up the successful movement to revoke the hereditary rights of Great Britain's House of Lords. He led the greatest crusade to defend liberty and civil rights in the history of the world, that which was waged against the Nazi regime. Winston Churchill was the definitive man of destiny for the 20th century -- who not only lived history but also prophesied it, made it and wrote about it. Churchill was a remarkable renaissance man. He was an aristocratic democrat, a phenomenal statesman and the greatest war leader of his era

And on and on and on....

Besides, how many leaders of countries have ever matched some of his quotes, like this one:

"I'm drunk, and you're ugly, but in the morning, I'll be sober, but you'll still be ugly' /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 11:46 PM
It is easy to second guess men with the lives of thousands in thier hands...hinging on decisions they make...or fail to after the fact. We can only second guess but so much..we have the luxury of over 60 years..... IMO Winston Churchill will go down as he should as a great leader of men. He was flawed of course and he was wrong...often...but he was the man for the hour. There is not one SOB in this forum who could even begin to acurately put themselves in the place of ANY of the men in WW2...on either side...except MAYBE men who have been expose to combat...and even then it is still so different.....morals wise....worldly savyness wise.... sense of purpose wise. I can sit back here and say how could the Germans of that generation do XXXX and I can be reasonably sure what I would do if faced with that TODAY...but then..under the conditions of the times...who knows? It's easy to say what WC SHOULD have done but what kind of intelligence did he have? What kind of advice did he get? It's easy to sit back and say what "I" would have done..or what should have been done... 60 years after the fact in the comfort of my livingroom with my full belly, my job, my health and none of my loved ones in immediate harms way.........

<CENTER>http://www.world-wide-net.com/tuskegeeairmen/ta-1943.jpg <marquee><FONT COLOR="RED"><FONT SIZE="+1">"Straighten up.......Fly right..~S~"<FONT SIZE> </marquee> http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat

<CENTER><FONT COLOR="ORANGE">vflyer@comcast.net<FONT COLOR>
<Center><div style="width:200;color:red;font-size:18pt;filter:shadow Blur[color=red,strength=8)">99th Pursuit Squadron

Message Edited on 10/12/0306:50PM by Bearcat99

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 11:47 PM
And what right do you have to judge? You compiled evidence from what seams to be a single source, and pointed out one or two mistakes. Not huge plodding mistakes of an imbecile, but calculated risks to help allies, which far from being absolute one sided disasters, turned out to be hard fought events which helped turn events against the Nazi German Forces. Everyone suffered some sort of defeat during WW2, its a sad fact that in warfare there has to be a victor. And its notable to mention that WW2 was not won in a single battle, and that the Victorys awarded to Great Britain far outweighed its defeats. It was the Battle of Britain, that proved pivitol for Western Europe, an invasion and subsequent defeat of Britain would of taken the US out of a Western European war, as it would not of had any safe places from which to conduct operations, the loss of Britains Air and Naval anti-Submarine umbrella would of thrown the favour totally in the Kreigsmarines favour.


sandbag_69 wrote:
-
- Oboe wrote:
-- As an individual leader, who's success are we
-- judging his failing against?
--
-- We could compile similar but more depressing
-- pictures of all the leaders of his era.
--
--
- i am judging him against his decisions that he made,
- that caused so many defeats for his country.
-
-
-
-
-



<center>http://rageman.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/sigs/su25.jpg (http://rageman.vze.com)</center>

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 11:48 PM
-
- RAF74_Wall-dog wrote:
-- S! All!
--
-- Winston Churchill was one of the greatest national
-- leaders in the history of mankind.


sandbag_69 wrote:
-
- Maybe in your opinion. Roosevelt was 10 times the
- leader the Bulldog was.

Show us your workings on how you came to that number then. Of course, Roosevelt was a damn fine President, and a great leader, but don't start picking bullsh*t numbers out of the hat now you're getting some flak

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 11:49 PM
Bessie Braddock M.P.- "If you were my husband, I'd poison your tea."
Winston Chuchill - "If you were my wife, I'd drink it!"

Got to give him a few points for that one.

<center>http://www.uploadit.org/files/150903-Screensig.jpg

Whirlwind Whiner - First Of The Few

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 11:51 PM
Kernow wrote:
-
- - I knew this one would come up /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Yes, you're right. In a
- strict military sense it made no sense to take
- troops from the army which had given the Italians
- such a hard time. And yes, they probably would have
- kicked the axis out of North Africa before the
- Afrika Korps arrived. However, Churchill believed
- the Greeks had to be helped somehow, even if the
- attempt was futile. Had something to do with Athens
- being the birthplace of democracy too, I think.
- Good reasons to help? Maybe not. But would it have
- been morally right to do nothing? Such thinking
- probably figured prominently in Churchills mind.
-
So you are saying that the defeat in North Africa can be justified because we had to save the cradle of Democracy?
tell that to the troops that gave their lives for that debacle.

- Also like to point out that one German general,
- interviewed after the war, thought it the critical
- point in WW2, because the help Britain did provide
- to Greece delayed Barbarossa just enough to deny the
- Germans Moscow in the autumn of that year.

Greece had no affect what so ever on Barbarrosa.
The German 12th Army was involved in the Balkans throughout the War and never served on the Eastern front.
-
-- Also Churchill caused the defeat and disaster at
-- Singapore by redirecting aircraft and ammunition
-- that should have been sent to Malaya but was infact
-- sent to Russia (Churchill sent 450 Aircraft to
-- Russia before the japs invaded Malaya) instead.
-- Churchill you see didn't want to upset the Japs and
-- was frightened that they attack Malaya while Britain
-- was fighting the Germans. Which is exactly what they
-- did! Even though his commanders in Malaya had
-- requested re-inforcements.
-
- Russia was already in the war and fighting on our
- side. It made sense to help them rather than
- reinforce a region where there might be no war if
- the enemy wasn't antagonized. Britain couldn't be
- strong everywhere, or even anywhere at that time.
- It was a risk, certainly, but the ac were certain to
- be of some use in the USSR. They might have been
- wasted in the Far East. Events probably prove that
- they would have achieved far more in the Far East.
- This is also another case where you can perhaps see
- Churchill's desire to be of some assistance to an
- ally, even when this was not obviously in Britain's
- best military interest. Would you have sent the ac
- to the war zone or peaceful area?

Peaceful? French Indo-China had been invaded, Attack from Japan was inevitable.
A |British Prime Ministers duty is to the British people and Army. Not the Soviet Russians who had welcomed Britains defeat in France 1940.

-
-- Churchill also planned that great campaign in Norway
-- 1940 that turned out to be the first of a series of
-- disasters to befall Britain.
-
- Again, was it better the leave Norway to its fate?
- The Royal Navy will tell you that they won the
- Battle of Britain by giving the Kreigsmarine such a
- battering in the Norway campaign

No, but Churchill was involved with the planning of Norway 1940. It failed jus liek his great Gallipoli campaign of 1915.

-
-- Then there was Oran when he sent the might Royal
-- navy to destroy his allies the French, because he
-- thought the Germans might make the French navy
-- attack the atlantic Convoys. What a nonsense, as if
-- any French sailor would have allowed his ship to
-- sail against Royal navy because the Germans had
-- asked. I bet the French would rather have scuttled
-- their fleet first.
-
- But they didn't scuttle their fleet and Vichy troops
- did fight the Anglo-Americans at some places in
- North Africa during the Torch landings.

Maybe they feared the Allies would attack them again just like Oran.
-
-- Churchill had one last bad decision that was
-- listened to and that was the invasion of Italy and
-- the subsequent Italian Invasion that bogged down
-- many troops in the best defensive terrain in Europe.
-
- Yes, Churchill was still trying to prove his 'soft
- underbelly of Europe' theory from WW1 I think.
- However, the experience gained during several
- amphibious operations came in very handy during
- Overlord. Also the Sicilly landings came at the
- height of Zitadelle, causing Hausser's SS Pz Corps
- to be transfered to Italy.

Germans had lost Zitadelle on the first few days when they failed to achieve the first days objectives.


-- Oh almost forgot one other disgrace which was at the
-- end of the war when Churchill allowed 40000 captured
-- Russians who had fought for the Germans to be handed
-- back to the Russians to face certain death even
-- though the Geneva Convention forbade such a thing.
-
- Yes indeed. Have you read 'Victims of Yalta,' which
- tells the whole sorry story? But Truman and other
- senior British and American politicians / statesmen
- are just as guilty as Churchill in this.

Churchill was responsible for the fate of the Russians in his protection.
-
-- To me Churchill's only finest hour was to keep
-- Britain in the War in 1940 and then plead with the
-- USA to save Britain.
--
-- maybe you disagree?
--
- Yes I do /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif although to a certain
- extent all your points are valid ones and I'm partly
- playing 'devil's advocate.' It's often said that
- wars are won by the side which makes fewest
- mistakes. Churchill, like every other leader, made
- some mistakes. But he made fewer than Hitler. If
- his mistakes were greater than some other leaders,
- then so too was his inspiration. And at a time when
- no one else in the free world was prepared to, he
- stood up, put 2 fingers up to Adolf and said, 'F***
- you!' /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
-
- Kernow
- 249 IAP
-

As I said his finest hour came in Battle of Britain 1940, but the defeats he caused kept happening until Oct 1942 when Monty told him to get stuffed.

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 11:55 PM
How could you not respect a man who looks so badass:

http://www.oldcountrytours.com/graphics/winston.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 11:56 PM
nt = No Text

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 11:59 PM
Low_Flyer wrote:
- Bessie Braddock M.P.- "If you were my husband, I'd
- poison your tea."
- Winston Chuchill - "If you were my wife, I'd drink
- it!"


My favorite was this one......."Winston you are DRUNK!!!!!!!" "Yes madame....and YOU are ugly...however in the morning I will be sober..." /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

sandbag_69 wrote:
-
- Maybe in your opinion. Roosevelt was 10 times the
- leader the Bulldog was.


And who says that you?? 69.... is that the year you were born or was that the year you joined the military? See....that is the kind of nationalistic CR@P that we have to keep out of these threads.... you're wrong for saying that man. I'm not tryiong to rag you either so dont take it that way. If you feel that way then fine...but to say that is off base because....who can measure it? All it does is bring out the rulers and the pi$$ing contest starts. This thread I hope will not turn into a "My leader was better than yours" kind of thing. The thread itself was......questionable as far as it's troll rating...but responses like that are the things that prevent any kind of real discussion from taking place. It has no place here. if we want to keep these forums as a place where you can even have some kind of decent diuscussion without the hammer coming down and good threads and posts being deleted... then think about what you post before you do and if your ire is up or your flag is out....put it down, put it back and find a way to get your point across without knocking someone else.......(It's hard I know...../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif )



Message Edited on 10/12/0307:09PM by Bearcat99

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 12:05 AM
Low_Flyer wrote:
- Bessie Braddock M.P.- "If you were my husband, I'd
- poison your tea."
- Winston Chuchill - "If you were my wife, I'd drink
- it!"


That's a good one. I like this one as well:

Some Lady to Churchill: "You are nothing but a drunk."

Churchill:"And you,my Lady,are ugly,but I shall be sober in the morning."

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Edit:Oops,beaten to it.../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif




47|FC
http://rangerring.com/wwii/p-47.jpg


Message Edited on 10/12/0306:06PM by necrobaron

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 12:06 AM
Rageman wrote:
- And what right do you have to judge?

the same right you have to judge anyone.

You compiled
- evidence from what seams to be a single source, and
- pointed out one or two mistakes.

Single Source, what gave you that opinion. I have been reading for many years.

- Not huge plodding
- mistakes of an imbecile, but calculated risks to
- help allies, which far from being absolute one sided
- disasters, turned out to be hard fought events which
- helped turn events against the Nazi German Forces.

He went again advice from his Military Commanders, jus in teh same way as Hitler did. Luckily they stoped listening to Churchill around the time of El-Alamein.

- Everyone suffered some sort of defeat during WW2,
- its a sad fact that in warfare there has to be a
- victor. And its notable to mention that WW2 was not
- won in a single battle, and that the Victorys
- awarded to Great Britain far outweighed its defeats.
- It was the Battle of Britain, that proved pivitol
- for Western Europe, an invasion and subsequent
- defeat of Britain would of taken the US out of a
- Western European war, as it would not of had any
- safe places from which to conduct operations, the
- loss of Britains Air and Naval anti-Submarine
- umbrella would of thrown the favour totally in the
- Kreigsmarines favour.
-
-

Churchill's interference in Military matters and strategic planning caused a number of defeats to Britain and could have possibly caused an Allied defeat in Italy also, that may have changed the whole course of the war.

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 12:08 AM
Urm,mods? It's obvious where this is going.....

47|FC
http://rangerring.com/wwii/p-47.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 12:11 AM
Bearcat99 wrote:
- sandbag_69 wrote:
--
-- Maybe in your opinion. Roosevelt was 10 times the
-- leader the Bulldog was.
-
-
- And who says that you?? 69.... is that the year you
- were born?

Well if you don't know what a 69 is then god help your wife.


See....that is the kind of nationalistic
- CR@P that we have to keep out of these threads....
- you're wrong for saying that man. If you feel that
- way then fine...but to say that is off base
- because....who can measure it? All it does is bring
- out the rulers and the pi$$ing contest starts. This
- thread I hope will not turn into a "My leader was
- better than yours" kind of thing. The thread itself
- was......questionable as far as it's troll
- rating...but responses like that are the things that
- prevent any kind of real discussion from taking
- place. It has no place here. if we want to keep
- these forums as a place where you can even have some
- kind of decent diuscussion without the hammer coming
- down and good threads and posts being
- deleted...THINK!!!! Before you post.
-

Calm down, when I said 10 times I didn't really mean 10 times. i just meant to me he was a better leader and man in all respects to Churchill.


-
-
- Message Edited on 10/12/03 07:01PM by Bearcat99

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 12:13 AM
sandbag::
-- I am judging him against his decisions that he made, that caused so many defeats for his country.

I tend to agree, to a degree. The 40000 Russian thing, if that was Churchill's doing, would be like how we (USA) returned Jewish refugees to the Hitlerites in the 1930s. Don't forget we sacrificed Erich Hartmann (35 real kills /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif ) to the Stalinists.

Also, what was Churchill's role and performance in the submarine war? That has failed to be posted about yet and is more important than anything mentioned except the BoB. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Be Sure. By unfortunate need, and by definition, Churchill was an international Politician first and frontline commander third. I may be wrong here, but Churchill's firm support for the Brit codebreakers hint that Churchill was a successful covert fighting man, and Master at tricking the amateur Nazi noobs. I wonder if the whole story of WW2 is told yet in the official books.

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 12:14 AM
I'm calm......really... I just hate thos pi$$ing contests... I actually got some good info out of this thread from both viewpoints..... and I LIKE it when that happens. Im glad it didnt go any further....

<CENTER>http://www.world-wide-net.com/tuskegeeairmen/ta-1943.jpg <marquee><FONT COLOR="RED"><FONT SIZE="+1">"Straighten up.......Fly right..~S~"<FONT SIZE> </marquee> http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat

<CENTER><FONT COLOR="ORANGE">vflyer@comcast.net<FONT COLOR>
<Center><div style="width:200;color:red;font-size:18pt;filter:shadow Blur[color=red,strength=8)">99th Pursuit Squadron

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 12:14 AM
EasyEight wrote:
- Hmmmm, was it your intention to **** the great man
- off or is that just the way you are?
-
- Was there anything positive to say about Churchill
- in these books of your's or have you conveniently
- forgot to mention them.
-
- No, well heres a few just in case:
-
- GOVERNOR GEORGE W. BUSH
- Churchill was the century's best example of how
- individuals can shape history rather than being
- shaped by it. The force of his will and his words
- gave courage to his country and saved the West. Yet
- it was also Churchill who, after World War II,
- discerned the dangers to come from communist
- tyranny. Just as he defined the moral issues of the
- 1930s and 1940s, he defined the great moral
- challenge that would shape America's role in the
- world up to our own time. Totalitarianism was the
- greatest evil of the 20th century, and Churchill its
- most able adversary.
-
- SENATOR JOHN McCAIN
- Like all of us, Churchill had his flaws. But like
- few other men, he was a man discerning enough to
- recognize a cause bigger than himself and honorable
- enough to devote his life to it. He saved not just
- Britain but Western civilization. In doing so, he
- earned for himself the tribute he paid to the
- fighters of the Royal Air Force in 1940: "Never in
- the field of human conflict was so much owed by so
- many to so few."
-
- JOHN O'SULLIVAN
- Churchill tried to strangle Lenin's totalitarianism
- in its cradle in 1919; he warned the world of
- Hitler's totalitarianism from the mid-1930s onward;
- and with Roosevelt he led the democracies to victory
- over Nazism. But totalitarianism did not perish in
- 1945, and Churchill was the first to warn in his
- Fulton speech that Stalin's Iron Curtain was
- descending over Europe. That speech persuaded
- America to resist this second totalitarian plague as
- it had resisted the first. And, once again,
- Churchill was a leader in that battle until his
- retirement in 1955. Churchill not only fought for
- humane values; he embodied them as a powerful
- writer, orator, and historian--and as a statesman of
- rare magnanimity. Had he not lived, the world would
- be a darker and crueller place.
-
- THOMAS SOWELL
- If one man ever pulled a whole nation through a
- crisis that threatened its very existence, that man
- was Churchill....The inspiration of this great man
- not only saved Britain; the disruption of the Nazi
- timetable for conquest bought time for a woefully
- unprepared United States finally to begin building
- up its military defenses. It is enough of a claim to
- historic greatness for a man to have saved his own
- country. Churchill may have saved civilization.
-
- NASHVILLE TENNESSEAN
- He was on the world stage for over six decades. He
- was a reformer who proposed social welfare in Great
- Britain two decades before FDR's New Deal. He headed
- up the successful movement to revoke the hereditary
- rights of Great Britain's House of Lords. He led the
- greatest crusade to defend liberty and civil rights
- in the history of the world, that which was waged
- against the Nazi regime. Winston Churchill was the
- definitive man of destiny for the 20th century --
- who not only lived history but also prophesied it,
- made it and wrote about it. Churchill was a
- remarkable renaissance man. He was an aristocratic
- democrat, a phenomenal statesman and the greatest
- war leader of his era
-
- And on and on and on....
-
- Besides, how many leaders of countries have ever
- matched some of his quotes, like this one:
-
- "I'm drunk, and you're ugly, but in the morning,
- I'll be sober, but you'll still be ugly' /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
-
-
-
-
I think all the people you have quoted are American, but Americans were not on the receiving end of most of his Strategic errors.

Why do you think the British got rid of him before the war actually ended as soon as elections were allowed?

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 12:18 AM
Bearcat99 wrote:
- I'm calm......really... I just hate thos pi$$ing
- contests... I actually got some good info out of
- this thread from both viewpoints..... and I LIKE it
- when that happens. Im glad it didnt go any
- further....
-
-
me too. I love a good debate dont you.

Honestly my opinion may be totally wrong but it is my humble opinion.

Ok Bearcat99 no more contests.

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 12:19 AM
- sandbag_69 wrote:

- Churchill's interference in Military matters and
- strategic planning caused a number of defeats to
- Britain and could have possibly caused an Allied
- defeat in Italy also, that may have changed the
- whole course of the war.


Look mate, if all you're going to do is speculate with 'could have possibly' and 'may have' lines, then maybe you should go back to your books and get some facts, rather than stuff that is totally hypothetical.

Oh, and with regards to Greece and the Balkans,do some more research before saying it didn't delay Barbarossa.

To quote you from the book THE RISE AND FALL OF THE THIRD REICH :

'The delay, as things turned out, was fatal. Defenders of Hitler's military genius have contended that the Balkan campaign did not set back the timetable for Barbarossa.But the testimony of the key German Generals is otherwise. Field Marshall Paulus, who at the time was chief planner of the Russian Campaign on the Army General Staff, testified on the stand at Nuremberg that Hilter's decision to destroy Yugoslavia postponed the beginning of Barbarossa by about 5 weeks. The Naval war Diary gives the same amount of time.

Von Rundstedt, who led Army Group South in Russia, told Allied Interrogators after the war that because of the Balkan campaign 'we began at least 4 weeks late. That," he added , 2 was a very vostly delay."

Sorry, but I'm more inclined to believe them.
-

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 12:24 AM
You dont have ANY right to judge. You're an armchair historian, a few books and a subscription to the history channel does not warrent skill enough to create a qualative argument to shift the perception of a line historical events.

You're trying to belittle someone far greater than you can ever be, judging him by his failures and forgetting his victories. Its with his stirring speeches and superb diplomatic manuevering that he secured the fate of Britain, at europes darkest hour, and not by wimping out against immeasurable odds, but by standing up against the enemy and providing support for those choosing to stand with him.

Sounds a little familiar to more recent events doesnt it?

<center>http://rageman.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/sigs/su25.jpg (http://rageman.vze.com)</center>

Message Edited on 10/13/0312:26AM by Rageman

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 12:31 AM
Is this guy actually Harry Potter?

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 12:35 AM
EasyEight wrote:
- Is this guy actually Harry Potter?
-
-

yeah watch him as he magically shoves his head up his own arse. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

<center>http://rageman.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/sigs/su25.jpg (http://rageman.vze.com)</center>

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 12:39 AM
Had the Germans not been forced to help the Italians in Greece, Barbarossa would have happened sooner. As to how that could have effected the outcome of the war is speculation...but there are some pretty big variables, enough even to reasonably assume that an eailer start to Barbarossa would have effected the outcome in one way or another.

... this is exactly the kind of thread that drew my interest in this board to begin with. Despite a close call w/ some flames, this is an interesting thread! bravo!

<center> http://webpages.charter.net/Stick_Fiend/images/crazyPilot.gif
<font size= 2>

<a href="http://webpages.charter.net/Stick_Fiend/"><font size= 2> Stick_Fiend Home<a/><font size= 2>
"Altitude, speed, maneuver, fire!"-The "formula of Terror" of Aleksandr Pokryshkin, Three times awarded the rank of Hero of the Soviet Union

Message Edited on 10/12/0307:41PM by georgeo76

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 12:39 AM
Actually, I read somewhere that Churchill tried that once and made a right hash of it. Jeez, that guy just couldn't do anything right could he /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 12:48 AM
Lets face it Churchill was a war monger first and foremost.
He loved the thrill and excitement of War simple as that.

Throughout the 1920's and 30's he went on about the threat of Nazism, Communism , Socialism and Republicanism to Britain. He was ignored so long because his only answer to all these so called threats was to rearm when Britain and the Western World was at the height of a great economic depression. People were starving and would rather have had Bread than Bombs.

He was proved right in the end but only because Nazism was allowed to continue as it was the natural enemy of Soviet Russia.

Churchill came to power why? Because Britain had been defeated in Norway, the irony was taht Norway was his plan.

In the 1920's Churchill had wanted to area bomb the Irish and use Poison Gas to stop them gaining Independence.
I'm no lover of the Irish but this fact tells you something about him.

BlitzPig_Rock
10-13-2003, 12:50 AM
Dont make me land this thing !! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://mysite.freeserve.com/bpstuff/sm/EPS_Plane.jpg

<center>http://mysite.freeserve.com/bpstuff/bobharris_image.jpg
<center><FONT COLOR="Red">UBI/IL2 Forum Moderator</FONT>
http://www.ubi.com/US/CommunityZone/Forums/guidelines

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 12:53 AM
It is because of Winston Churchills obvious quality as a leader and a man that this thread could work in the first place.

Try the same thread about the other leaders of modern history and you will not find too many redeeming qualities to keep an argument going.

He did'nt invade Poland, he did'nt make a deal with Hitler, he did'nt murder many of his own returning compatriots, he did'nt consign an entire army to suicide on a principal, he never liquidated his own resistance fighters for their potential to unseat him(Leningrad), he did'nt drag his country into the war for a few cheap impossible gains while failing to provide them with any realistic equipment(Mussolini). These clowns made many times the mistakes of Churchill and added blatent murder and genocide too.

That is what I was comparing him to.

Churchill was running the show almost from the first to the last, I think he was the right man at the right time, thank god he was , I just thank god he was!!!




Message Edited on 10/12/0311:57PM by Oboe

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 12:56 AM
Rageman wrote:
- You dont have ANY right to judge. You're an
- armchair historian, a few books and a subscription
- to the history channel does not warrent skill enough
- to create a qualative argument to shift the
- perception of a line historical events.
-

Everyone has the right to judge.
If we can't judge we might as well move to Afghanistan, Iran or some or whacky Islamic state

- You're trying to belittle someone far greater than
- you can ever be, judging him by his failures and
- forgetting his victories.

You don't know anything about me. He didn't win any victories it was his soldiers and commanders that did that.


Its with his stirring
- speeches and superb diplomatic manuevering that he
- secured the fate of Britain, at europes darkest
- hour, and not by wimping out against immeasurable
- odds, but by standing up against the enemy and
- providing support for those choosing to stand with
- him.

It was actually the RAF and Royal Navy that saved Britain not some stirring speach.
-
- Sounds a little familiar to more recent events
- doesnt it?
-
-
It took until Hitler declared war on the USA before the USA came in on Britains side militarily.

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 12:57 AM
sandbag_69 wrote:
- Lets face it Churchill was a war monger first and
- foremost.
- He loved the thrill and excitement of War simple as
- that.
-

Well, it took you a while to show where you are really coming from, although I knew it from the very beginning.

Mods this is the kind of stuff that is really nothing more than a well dressed troll thread. How much more of this is going to be allowed? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

BlitzPig_Rock
10-13-2003, 12:59 AM
BlackPhenix wrote:
- sandbag_69 wrote:
-- Lets face it Churchill was a war monger first and
-- foremost.
-- He loved the thrill and excitement of War simple as
-- that.
--
-
- Well, it took you a while to show where you are
- really coming from, although I knew it from the very
- beginning.
-
- Mods this is the kind of stuff that is really
- nothing more than a well dressed troll thread. How
- much more of this is going to be allowed?

I honestly dont know - its veering off away from the original point somewhat.

I`m watching it, maybe it can still work ? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

<center>http://mysite.freeserve.com/bpstuff/bobharris_image.jpg
<center><FONT COLOR="Red">UBI/IL2 Forum Moderator</FONT>
http://www.ubi.com/US/CommunityZone/Forums/guidelines

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 01:00 AM
Sandbag 69 your just trolling otherwise why up the ante, you'd have come out with all the dirt you could think of in your initial post.

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 01:01 AM
Oboe wrote:
- It is because of Winston Churchills obvious quality
- as a leader and a man that this thread could work in
- the first place.
-
- Try the same thread about the other leaders of
- modern history and you will not find too many
- redeeming qualities to keep an argument going.
-
- He did'nt invade Poland, he did'nt make a deal with
- Hitler, he did'nt murder many of his own returning
- compatriots, he did'nt consign an entire army to
- suicide on a principal, he never liquidated his own
- resistance fighters for their potential to unseat
- him(Leningrad), he did'nt drag his country into the
- war for a few cheap impossible gains while failing
- to provide them with any realistic
- equipment(Mussolini). These clowns made many times
- the mistakes of Churchill and added blatent murder
- and genocide too.
-
- That is what I was comparing him to.
-
- Churchill was running the show almost from the first
- to the last, I think he was the right man at the
- right time, thank god he was , I just thank god he
- was!!!
-
-
-
-
WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT!!!!
I am not comparing him to those nutcases Hitler and Stalin or any other tinpot dictator.

I am debating whether he was trully a great wartime leader or not!!!

Personnaly I thank God for all the hero's who fought against the Nazis in WW2 and won!!!!!

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 01:10 AM
He made mistakes, no doubt about it. But I think you(sAndbag) are taking an overly hostile view of certain events. His efforts to help Norway in particular were not as blunderous IMO as you make them out to be. Reading about that battle you should have noticed that it was not the one sided defeat handed to say, Poland or France. The aid given to Norway sucked up German resources and cost German lives. British as well obviously, but such is the nature of war. Besides, keeping the Germans out of Norway made sense, Norway not only being an ally (morals can and do figure into political decisions, no matter how jaded you are, you cant deny this), but a possbile base of operations for Germany to invade Great Britain itself.

I think others have also pointed out rather clearly that the Battle of Greece was not just a waste of resources and men. It had an effect on Germany, how much of an effect depends on how much credit you give to various sources. At least 2 weeks delay is what I have gotten out of my reading, maybe more according to what others have said here.

Are you the type of person to sit back and watch a friend get beaten half to death because there is a good chance you could get the stuffing knocked out of you too if you tried to help him? Lets assume you have your wife standing right behind you. Would you still help your friend even if that would mean leaving your wife without protection? Would you expect your friends to help you? Analogies are always tricky, but you get the idea.

Why isn't the aid given to GB from the US before Pearl Harbor considered a blunder in your opinion? After all, at that point there was a real chance that GB could fall to the Germans. Well, because they won, of course.

You are looking at this whole thing from a historians perspective, 60 years after the fact. Rememeber that, and take it into account.




Your Post Could Not Be Completed Because:

Board is busy currently unable to post.

Please make any needed corrections and try again.

Fish itchy

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 01:11 AM
- In the 1920's Churchill had wanted to area bomb the
- Irish and use Poison Gas to stop them gaining
- Independence.

Is this right? I've never heard of this. Is it just co-incidental that Britain was fighting IRAQI independence, using bombing, and that Churchill infamously advocated use of poison gas on 'uncivilised' Arab tribesmen, around this time?

You haven't mixed them up, have you? If not, I'd be interested to know where you got your information from.

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 01:15 AM
EasyEight wrote:
-
- Look mate, if all you're going to do is speculate
- with 'could have possibly' and 'may have' lines,
- then maybe you should go back to your books and get
- some facts, rather than stuff that is totally
- hypothetical.
-
- Oh, and with regards to Greece and the Balkans,do
- some more research before saying it didn't delay
- Barbarossa.
-
- To quote you from the book THE RISE AND FALL OF THE
- THIRD REICH :
-
- 'The delay, as things turned out, was fatal.
- Defenders of Hitler's military genius have contended
- that the Balkan campaign did not set back the
- timetable for Barbarossa.But the testimony of the
- key German Generals is otherwise. Field Marshall
- Paulus, who at the time was chief planner of the
- Russian Campaign on the Army General Staff,
- testified on the stand at Nuremberg that Hilter's
- decision to destroy Yugoslavia postponed the
- beginning of Barbarossa by about 5 weeks. The Naval
- war Diary gives the same amount of time.
-
- Von Rundstedt, who led Army Group South in Russia,
- told Allied Interrogators after the war that because
- of the Balkan campaign 'we began at least 4 weeks
- late. That," he added , 2 was a very vostly delay."
-
- Sorry, but I'm more inclined to believe them.
--
-

Churchill reason for sending troops to greece wasn't to hold up Barbarossa. So you can hardly make out that his strategy for sending troops to Greece was some fantastic military and strategic decision.

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 01:23 AM
US_8th_Dosiere wrote:
- -
- Are you the type of person to sit back and watch a
- friend get beaten half to death because there is a
- good chance you could get the stuffing knocked out
- of you too if you tried to help him? Lets assume
- you have your wife standing right behind you. Would
- you still help your friend even if that would mean
- leaving your wife without protection? Would you
- expect your friends to help you? Analogies are
- always tricky, but you get the idea.
-

Let me respond witha different analogy.

Lets say your family (the british soldiers in Africa) were fighting against an enemy and a distant friend asks for help, would you send half of them to help the distant friend when you are told by your family that the other half and infact all your children will be beaten by the enemy.
I think not.
You beat the enemy threatening your family every time. then if possible help your friend.

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 01:39 AM
US_8th_Dosiere wrote:
- He made mistakes, no doubt about it. But I think
- you(sAndbag) are taking an overly hostile view of
- certain events. His efforts to help Norway in
- particular were not as blunderous IMO as you make
- them out to be. Reading about that battle you
- should have noticed that it was not the one sided
- defeat handed to say, Poland or France. The aid
- given to Norway sucked up German resources and cost
- German lives. British as well obviously, but such
- is the nature of war. Besides, keeping the Germans
- out of Norway made sense, Norway not only being an
- ally (morals can and do figure into political
- decisions, no matter how jaded you are, you cant
- deny this), but a possbile base of operations for
- Germany to invade Great Britain itself.

The disasters that befell Britain from Norway, to Greece, North Africa and Singapore make me feel hostile.
100's of thousands of gallant British and Imperial Soldiers paid terribly for Winnies mistakes.

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 01:44 AM
US_8th_Dosiere wrote:
-
- Why isn't the aid given to GB from the US before
- Pearl Harbor considered a blunder in your opinion?

A blunder by whom? Churchill?
As i said firstly, getting the USA into the war was teh best thing he did in the war. I guess he knew that Britain had been soundly beaten and could not even hope to take teh Gerry's on in the continent of Europe.

- After all, at that point there was a real chance
- that GB could fall to the Germans. Well, because
- they won, of course.
-
- You are looking at this whole thing from a
- historians perspective, 60 years after the fact.
- Rememeber that, and take it into account.

Every event can only be looked on from an Historical perspective. That is why we have history books and historians.


-
-
-
-
-
- Your Post Could Not Be Completed Because:
-
- Board is busy currently unable to post.
-
- Please make any needed corrections and try again.
-
- Fish itchy

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 01:48 AM
- Churchill was almost entirely to blame for the early
- defeat in North Africa in 1941 at the hands of the
- newly arrived Afrika Corp because he ordered a large
- part of the British Army to Greece in a futile bid
- to stop the German Panzers.

Britain's strategy against continental armies was to fight them at the margins, where control of the sea allowed Britain to deploy it's forces effectively, and prevented the continental armies from doing so. That was the strategy from Napoleonic times onwards.

If you apply that strategy to the second world war, you will see that Britain benefited from a continuation of the war in North Africa. It allowed Britain to fight a small part of the German army, and in time defeat it, all the while bleeding German strength.

If Britain had driven the Italians out of Africa in 1941, then there would be no large scale Luftwaffe prescence in the Med, no destruction of German supplies in transport across the Med, several more German divisions in Russia.

And in 1942, no El Alamein, no Torch, no destruction of the German and Italian forces in Tunisia. They lost as many men there as they lost in the Stalingrad pocket. They lost 2,500 aircraft during the retreat from Alamein and the fighting and evacuation of Tunisia.

None of this would have happened with a simple victory in 1941.

And that's not counting the effects of the Balkan campaign on the German invasion of Russia. Even if it didn't delay it, it reduced German strength, particulary the Luftwaffe, which lost more than 500 planes during the Balkan campaign (over 150 Ju 52s at Crete alone)

- Also Churchill caused the defeat and disaster at
- Singapore by redirecting aircraft and ammunition
- that should have been sent to Malaya but was infact
- sent to Russia (Churchill sent 450 Aircraft to
- Russia before the japs invaded Malaya) instead.
- Churchill you see didn't want to upset the Japs and
- was frightened that they attack Malaya while Britain
- was fighting the Germans. Which is exactly what they
- did! Even though his commanders in Malaya had
- requested re-inforcements.

The obvious point, of course, is that Russia's survival was more important the Singapore's. Singapore fell, and the War was won. If Russia fell in 1941, then the outcome of the war is at least in doubt, and certainly more bloody for Britain.

- Churchill also planned that great campaign in Norway
- 1940 that turned out to be the first of a series of
- disasters to befall Britain.

Again, as Kernow said, the Norwegian campaign proved vital later on. The Germans lost half their destroyers, and most of their heavier ships were damaged. With the whole lot intact, they might have been able to cover sea lion better.

- Then there was Oran when he sent the might Royal
- navy to destroy his allies the French, because he
- thought the Germans might make the French navy
- attack the atlantic Convoys. What a nonsense, as if
- any French sailor would have allowed his ship to
- sail against Royal navy becaus ethe Germans had
- asked.

French sailors obey their officers, who obey their government. The French hada pro German government installed. At any time, the Germans might have put sufficient pressure on Vichy to either hand over the ships, or actively use them against British forces. Vichy did carry out attacks on British forces, and collaberated with the Germans in the Middle East.

- I bet the French would rather have scuttled
- their fleet first.

Churchill didn't order the French fleet sunk. He offered 3 options, sail to a British port away from the warzone (Carribean iirc), join the allies, or sail with reduced crews and be interned in British ports. The French refused all three options.

The blame for the action really lies with the French admiral, who told his political masters that the ultimatum was surrender to the British or be sunk, without mentioning the real options.

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 02:08 AM
ive got to hand out another award today...."THE MOST INTERESTING THREAD OF THE MONTH" award goes to Sandbag. good thread. i dont agree with you in the least. but good thread. churchill made mistakes, bad mistakes. but hitler and mussolini made MUCH worse mistakes. and japan made worse mistakes than churchill too. so again whoever makes the least mistakes wins applies in ww2 . all generals and statesmen in ww2 made mistakes. ill tell you what though. without churchill england would have been MUCH more wishy washy and would have lost more men and battles in different ways without him. and his quotes haunt all of us to this day. as much or more than the bombing of pearl harbor speech. his humor was priceless too showing great wit and intelligence. i would go so far as to say that without churchill england would have made worse different mistakes and might have lost the war. by indecision.

www.fighterjocks.net (http://www.fighterjocks.net) home of the 11 time Champions Team AFJ. 6 Years Flying. Semper Invictus! <img src ="http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_120_1065509047.jpg">

Message Edited on 10/12/0306:09PM by RedDeth

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 02:54 AM
sandbag_69 wrote:
- You don't know anything about me. He didn't win any
- victories it was his soldiers and commanders that
- did that.


So by you're own admission then, he wasnt responsible for the mistakes at Norway, Greece, North Africa and Singapore then? As he wasnt any of the Soldiers or Commanders... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif


<center>http://rageman.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/sigs/su25.jpg (http://rageman.vze.com)</center>

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 03:11 AM
sandbag_69 wrote:

- Why????????

Because! Hind sight is 20 20 and you dont realise that

<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

Message Edited on 10/12/0307:13PM by tagert

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 03:56 AM
Can't add to the debate, but I do think he was the right man for the time. I think he had balls the size of Saturn, and I think his abilities were broader than your typical politician. But I laughed my butt off when he was filmed being chased off a mound of rubble by an irate housewife. He was taking in the photo op when she heard him say "we can take it." She waddled up the pile and, chasing him off it, said something like "you're not the one who's got to take it."

I don't think there was a script for WW2. The folks stuck on the hot seat all boned something up--but they stayed the course.

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 04:03 AM
-- Britain's strategy against continental armies was to
-- fight them at the margins, where control of the sea
-- allowed Britain to deploy it's forces effectively, and
-- prevented the continental armies from doing so. That was
-- the strategy from Napoleonic times onwards.

Romans used that strategery in the second Carthagenian WAR to wear down Carthage and isolate them from its allies and also to isolate Hannibal in north Italy.


sandbag::
-- Every event can only be looked on from an Historical...


"an Historical". A Brit politician with a university degree in History running for parliament on anti~Churchill rhetoric. Nothing wrong with that. I say vote the politician into parliament and he/she will be content, for a short while anyway.

Definition:: politician = sandbagger /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif