Sir Winston Churchill -- Opinions?

I'm reading one of the many biographies. Fascinating man. In his attitudes, many would (probably rightfully so) call him a warmonger. He was most definitely conservative.

However......

In 1940 many in Britain stood ready to negoiate with and make peace with Hitler. Churchill (for all intents and purposes) stood alone, and refused. Had Churchill not been around, and Britain had made peace with Hitler, the world would be a vastly different place. The bulk of World War II would have been avoided, and millions of lives would have been saved. But at what cost?

My personal opinion is mixed. He clearly loved war, and I can imagine myself rolling my eyes at many of his speeches had I been on the scene at the time. Talk about rhetorical overkill. His social policies and jingoistic sensibilities were as backwards as they come. However, I wonder where the world would be if he hadn't prevailed in his attitude.

Thoughts?

political structure of the Middle East.

The 1911 conversion of the British Navy to oil? Winston Churchill.

Combining Mosul, Basra and Baghdad into Iraq? Winston Churchill.

The overthrow of Mossadeq and the ascendancy of the Shah? Winston Churchill.

speaking German? Would the local police be enjoying sauerkraut?
Seriously I have always thought Churchill was a really good historian and a fine if a bit stagey orator.

By the time Britan entered WWII in 1944, the outcome already have been decided and Russian tanks were rolling through Europe towards Berlin.

The only thing that might have allowed Germany to win the war, if US had chosen not to fight the war with Japan and Japan had agreed to open second front on Russia.

What history books have you been reading? Seems to me that if you are being bombed daily by your enemies, you have already entered the war.

If Britain had made peace with Germany, all of Hilters armies (and bombing resources) could have moved to Russia instead of guarding against Britain and the US. All in all, a very different outcome is most certainly possible.

I think much more scary thing would be japan opening the second front

By the time Pearl Harbor rolled around, the Battle of Britain had happened, Dunkirk had happened, and the Eighth Army was in North Africa.

It's the USA that entered (officially) after Pearl Harbor.

Russia was pleading for US and Britain to open second front on Germans since 1941.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tehran_Conference

Roosevelt gave Stalin a pledge that he had been waiting for since June 1941: that the Anglo-Americans would open a second front in France in the spring of 1944. This was Stalin’s major political objective of the war, so he was well-satisfied.

(plow straight across the Channel and take the shortest route possible for Germany) is that such an invasion had already been tried, and failed. Neither the British nor the Americans had enough equipment or enough bodies on hand in '41 or '42 to have made something like Normandy work.

Let us ignore Operation Torch and Operation Husky.

Now if you had said that a second front on the Northern Europe continent, ignoring bombing missions, wasn't opened until 1944 you would be correct.

Singapore fell in Feb of 1942 the French fleet was scuttled in Toulon in Nov. 1942.

Russia was pleading for US and Britan to open the second front against Germany for 4 years.
When the second front was opened in 1944, it was irrelevant.

shipping in the Mediterranean and access to the Middle East oilfields. It is indeed true that there were more German divisions on the Russian front than elsewhere from 1941-1944, but the British were neither idle nor cowards. And the AngloAmerican bombing runs into Germany in 1943 affected the Germans long before the British physically reached Germany.

Since Russia began the war allied with Germany and Germany decided to invade anyway, the idea upthread (put forward by another poster) that Churchill could have made peace seems pretty ludicrous.

Russia advanced German technology, or at least that is how it was viewed in Russia.

the Urals. The US and Britian learned to fight the Nazis by invading North Africa and Italy. Invading France would have, and was, disastrous without the instruction learned by invading North Africa and Italy.

and were successfully applied throughout the conflict.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_operations

There were no drastic changes to military doctrine and tactics in Russia as far as I know.

What was important in Russia that factories were moved behind Ural mountains away from the reach of German forces and started to produce equipment in large enough quantities to turn the tide. That was a magnificent feat, especially taking into consideration that half of the country either lied in ruins or were under German occupation.

1941 1942 1943 1944
Tank/Gun production: 6,590 24,446 24,089 28,963
Aircraft production: 15,735 25,436 34,845 40,246

Britain was fighting with Italy for control of the colonies in Africa and middle east. There were only 115,000 Nazis (Germans) in Africa campaign.
Not sure how fighting militarily inept Italy provided Allies with insights on how to fight Germans.

Whose lives?

How do you know that Nazi killing - and for that matter Japanese killing of Chinese and others - would have stopped without a war?

There is no evidence for this.

Churchill was an incredible polymath, a rhetorical master, a tremendous humorist, and a critical thinker - something very, very, very, very rare among modern conservatives.

He was also an imperialist and referred to Ghandi in vicious terms, even suggesting that Ghandi should be allowed to starve himself to death.

Churchill was primarily a human being, and as such, was a mixed bag. It is almost never the case that one person is all one way.

On balance, he was exactly the right person for his moment in history. I note the greatest liberal President in US history - FDR - was a very close friend although they had huge differences about questions like India. I dread the thought of what the world might have been without Churchill, even recognizing his many faults.

The war in Europe would have been over. THOSE lives would have been saved. But as I said, at what cost? Perhaps at the cost of a larger calamity later or elsewhere.

if there had been a European war in August in which we were engaged we would have used this weapon.
http://varifrank.com/images/Gun-type_Nuclear_weapon.bmp

The France, the US, and Russia (after the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and the German invasion, of course) recognized the danger of unchecked German expansionism and militarism.

Besides, British public sentiment was completely against the Germans after the invasion of Poland and alarmed at the ties that Germany had with fascist Italy.

Churchill may have seemed alone in his opposition, but the rest of the sane world recognized that there was no peace to be had with the Nazis.

The unfinished William Manchester (vol. 1 and 2)?

If you ever have the time (and haven't already) read Churchill's memoirs of WWII...I have a set that I revisit about every 5 years or so.

"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on."
- Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)

"I am ready to meet my Maker. Whether my Maker is prepared for the great ordeal of meeting me is another matter."
- Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)

Although prepared for martyrdom, I preferred that it be postponed.
Winston Churchill

I like a man who grins when he fights.
Winston Churchill

Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.
Winston Churchill
On the Battle of Britain

I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat.
Winston Churchill

I like pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.
Winston Churchill

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.
Winston Churchill

A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
Winston Churchill

The inherent vice of capitalism is the uneven division of blessings, while the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal division of misery.
Winston Churchill


He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire.
Winston Churchill
On Sir Stanley Cripps

The problems of victory are more agreeable than the problems of defeat, but they are no less difficult.
Winston Churchill


and my personal favorite:
I have taken more out of alcohol than alcohol has taken out of me.
Winston Churchill

Britain did not fight in WWII in any significant way until 1944 when the outcome of the war has been decided.

If you did not have Churchill, it would be less likely to have a cold war, and therefore, vietnam war, korean war, afgan war.

I think the concept that all those troops planes ect In Africa and France wouldn't have turned the tide outside Moscow if fanciful. nt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad

The results of these operations are often cited as one of the turning points of World War II. Stalingrad was the bloodiest battle in human history, with combined casualties estimated to be above 1.5 million.

---

After that battle, Russians marched on westwards pushing the Germans out Russia and kicking them out of other countries on the way to Berlin

the Germans in Africa

the AXIS losses in Africa 41 and 42

Total Axis:<4>
12,808 killed (german only)
101,784 + captured (German only)
950,000 total casualties
8,000 aircraft destroyed or captured
6,200 guns destroyed or captured
2,500 tanks destroyed or captured

I do not believe that Germany adding 120,000 troops to the eastern front would have had any significant influence on the outcome of the war.
Italy was not a great fighter and did not have a stake in capturing russian territory.
It did contributed about 235,000 man as a token of solidarity with Germany, but later withdrawn them in 1943.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_war_in_Soviet_Union%2C_1941-1943

On the other hand, Russians fought, killed and taken prisoner 5,150,000 Germans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_%28World_War_II%29

Hitler lost more men in the African campaign (mainly in the numbers of prisoners) than at Stalingrad. The British fought in Italy, in Norway, in Greece, in Burma and other parts of southeast Asia, and in France. And the Battle for Britain was immensely important. The Luftwaffe lost nearly 2,000 planes, half the numbers that engaged in the battle. And the Germans lost 2,000 before that, from the French Air Force in the battle for France. If those 4,000 planes had been focused on the Eastern Front, it might have had quite an impact. The Russians clearly bore the brunt of the battle, but to say the British did nothing until the end of the war just seems absurd to me.

Russia fought about 90% of all German forces. 10% were in all other theaters combined.

Let's compare battle of Stalingrad to african campaign.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_African_Campaign

Germany:

12,808 killed<2>
Unknowned wounded
101,784 + captured<3>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_stalingrad

Battle of Stalingrad:

Germany

750,000 killed or wounded
250,000 captured

and that they suffered 950,000 casualties overall, with 8,000 planes destroyed and 2,500 tanks. I would not call that campaign "insignificant", though I agree with you totally that the Russian Army made the overwhelmingly significant contribution to the defeat of the Axis powers. I'll be the first to agree on that. I just don't think it's rational or reasonable to say the British did nothing until the end.

German being the major threat to Russia and the rest of the europe.

I know I am not being entire fair to Britain, but that makes for more lively discussion ;-).

From Russian perspective, I would love D-Day to happen as early as possible. Preferably, on June 22 of 1941. :)
Though, I do think that D-Day was not necessary for liberation of Europe from German forces.

The threat of British / US forces landing would be enough to keep some German troops on the west, thus alleviating the strain on Russia. Irrespectively whether the actual landing occurred or not.

You can't discount them as casualties in the African campaign but then count them in the Stalingrad campaign. According to Wikipedia, among the 850,000 Axis casualties at Stalingrad, there were 400,000 Germans, 200,000 Romanians (they had two armies there), 130,000 Italians, and 120,000 Hungarians.

The difference is less dramatic then I implied.

On the other hand, as I argued in a different thread, Italy had plans for Africa and would have fought there irrespectively of 120,000 germans helping them.
I am not sure that Italy wanted any Russian territory and, as I understood, most of their involvement in Russia campaign was as a token of solidarity with Germany.

Italy did withdraw from Russia after 1943.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_war_in_Soviet_Union%2C_1941-1943

120,000 (african campaign) vs 5,000,000+ (eastern front)

(I know, I am now just being anal retentive ;-) )

Pearl Harbor was probably bound to occur after Russia defeated Japan in the The Second Russo-Japanese War of 1939.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khalkhin_Gol

Although this engagement is little-known in the West, it had profound implications on the conduct of World War II. It may be said to be the first decisive battle of World War II, because it determined that the two principal Axis Powers, Germany and Japan, would never geographically link up their areas of control through Russia. The defeat convinced the Imperial General Staff in Tokyo that the policy of the North Strike Group, favoured by the army, which wanted to seize Siberia as far as Lake Baikal for its resources, was untenable. Instead the South Strike Group, favored by the navy, which wanted to seize the resources of Southeast Asia, especially the petroleum and mineral-rich Dutch East Indies, gained the ascendancy, leading directly to the attack on Pearl Harbor two and a half years later in December 1941. The Japanese would never make an offensive movement towards Russia again. In 1941, the two countries signed agreements respecting the borders of Mongolia and Manchukuo<19> and pledging neutrality towards each other.<20> They remained at peace until Operation August Storm and the Soviet conquest of Manchuria in August 1945, in the final weeks of the war.

Apparently, Dresden did have some presence of factories but it wasn't considered a high-value military target. The RAF dropped something like 4,000 tons of bombs and it created a great fire that consumed much of the city. I think there were thousands of refugees there, fleeing the Russian Army. I've read accounts of anywhere from 50,000 to 250,000 people dying, although the actual statistics might be hard to prove.

I don't know and I'm not an expert on WWII to really come down hard either way on the man. I think Churchill was a very comforting and powerful voice in the night, when things looked very bleak for the people of Europe. Europeans under the Nazi boot everywhere hung on his every word through the forbidden broadcasts of the BBC. I believe I recall an account of an attempted German invasion of England right after Dunkirk. The Germans sent an expeditionary force into the English Channel and Churchill ordered the dumping of barrels of gasoline and setting it on fire. The German troops were blinded or burned to death and Hitler decided that a full invasion would not be possible without winning the air war.

My mother and her family, who are French and lived through the occupation and war considered Churchill the great hero of their lives, along with Roosevelt.

100,000 woman and children in one night.

"Changing their tactics to expand the coverage and increase the damage, 279 B-29s raided on the night of March 9–10, dropping around 1,700 tons of bombs. Approximately 16 square miles (41 km²) of the city were destroyed and some 100,000 people are estimated to have died in the resulting firestorm, more than the immediate deaths of either Hiroshima or Nagasaki.<1><2> The US Strategic Bombing Survey later estimated that nearly 88,000 people died in this one raid, 41,000 were injured, and over a million residents lost their homes. The Tokyo Fire Department estimated a higher toll: 97,000 killed and 125,000 wounded. The Tokyo Metropolitan Police Department established a figure of 124,711 casualties including both killed and wounded and 286,358 buildings and homes destroyed. Richard Rhodes, historian, put deaths at over 100,000, injuries at a million and homeless residents at a million. These casualty and damage figures could be low: Mark Selden wrote in Japan Focus"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo_in_World_War_II

Some sources say Eleanor took this photograph. Now that's a threesome for tea!

I'm not fond of him myself, on the whole. I've read his histories of WWI and WWII, which are interesting as memoirs, less interesting as history. On the other hand, I am not willing to blame him in either case for bringing those wars about, he simply didn't have that sort of power at the time. And if one is to get involved in modern conventional total wars, he seems to have been the sort of detail-oriented war-nerd one would want in charge of the war effort (according to himself anyway.)

WRT making peace with Hitler, I tend to think that would have been a postponement at best. There were fundamental "interests" at stake, not merely British, and most of this argument was about when to start the war, rather than whether to have a war at all. Hitler was a war-lover, and his regime was built on and for conquest and nationalism.

It is worth observing that neither WWI or WWII, which were largely disasters for the participants (except for the US) seemed to convince the participants that war was a stupid idea.

What is interesting to me is that governments in general had no problem with millions of dead in pursuit of their interests, and there is a lesson for the citizens of all nations in that fact.

...for Greatest Statesman of The 20th Century honors.

Those of you who blaim him for the duration and destructiveness of WWII, go buy Buchanan's new book, curl up in a corner, and be happy.....

He was an odd, odd duck.

I'm not sure why anyone would think that Hitler would have stopped if England agreed to peace. This was a group that murdered 12 million people in a genocide - all bets are off with sociopaths.

travelled with him for YEARS.

It can be quite funny.

"Dinner At the White House" by Adamic about Churchill's last dinner at the WH in January of '42. Also fun.

He had superlative abilities in many areas.

I fault him only for his disastrous Gallipoli campaign. And maybe for allowing the Lusitania to be a dreadnought in disguise.

King Edward's private secretary, Knollys, once wrote to someone to ask about Winston's motives. 'Let's not pretend he's doing this out of principle or conviction: the thought that he has either is enough to make anyone laugh.'

A damaged man, but one you would want on your side in a fight! He was wrong half the time, but he never wanted for decision or drive. His life was filled in almost equal parts with terrible blunders and great victories. And he did not give up in anything.

At the ripe old age of 32, he complained bitterly about the shortness of life. 'We are all worms,' he decided. 'But I do believe that I am a glow worm.' It was his sad fate to watch over the decline of the British Empire, and this understandably made him a bit testy. "I will not preside over a dismemberment!"



You made me love you, I didn't want to do it...

Winston the former Apostate, savior of the Tories (from Punch). Ultimately, I'm afraid I love him, too, warts and all. I'm sure he would have inspired me to fits of rage, but what a glow worm he was.

Just as Churchill had to witness the dismemberment of the Empire. They were both great men their own time and context, and I respect and honor both of them. If it hadn't been for Churchill, we might not have the privilege of open discussion of politics on the internet. I can't imagine that the Nazis (or their successors, the American Repuke party) would enjoy the free exchange of ideas.

They seemed strangely bound to eachother. Winston was at his worst in that exchange. A first class bastard. Gandhi outplayed and excelled him.

Pwned.

fatter?

Claimed that Italy was Europe's "soft underbelly," in WWII, which proved to be false.

But a solid stalwart leader for the British during WWII.

I'm not sure what history books you are reading but there were not really a lot advocating surrender. Your claim that Churchill stood alone is downright false. Are you lying about that or just ignorant?

Your ignorant spin sounds like right-wing crapola; I don't believe you have read any books on Winston Churchill, or anyone else, and I think you are disrupting.