Churchill

[John Lambies Doos]

Was he really the great blighty hero?

Seemed to spend all his time in the safe haven of the London underground

http://punditwire.com/2012/11/29/scotlands-forgotten-heroes/

[Bobby Skidmarks]

Outrageous!

He should have been fighting in the trenches alongside Stalin and Roosevelt.

[Romeo]

1 hour ago, John Lambies Doos said:

 

Was he really the great blighty hero?

Seemed to spend all his time in the safe haven of the London underground

http://punditwire.com/2012/11/29/scotlands-forgotten-heroes/

 

Was he's he not a bit of a massive racist or am I imagining that?

[Redstarstranraer]

That article is fairly mild in terms of Churchill being a bit of an ass.  You could make an argument it was for the greater good and all the rest of it.

I'm sure a certain constituency on here won't like it and he did have some good points in terms of the much vaunted 'inspirational leadership' we all hear so much about but all in all not only was Churchill a bit of a tit, to put it mildly, but also not that great a war leader.

For a start he was an utterly unapologetic imperialist (and no, not everyone was at the time) who firmly believed Britain had a right to go in and take over whatever 'uncivilised' nation to which it took a fancy.  He also held racist views that condoned such imperialism and held that the colonised nations were generally inferior to the European colonisers on a fundamental level.  It was true he wanted Britain to be the stereotypical 'big brother', acting in the best interests of those who could not see what their interests were, but he firmly believed in the Empire and acted at all times to try and preserve our dominion over it.

His actual list of dubious positions and unwise decisions is too long to go through in its entirety, but the 'highlights' would be:

• Was initially utterly unable to countenance any form of Home Rule for Ireland and was responsible for sending in the Black and Tans and instituting a policy of harsh repression on the understanding he could quell the movement for independence there through police measures.  Eventually advocated negotiations and partition but only when his initial policy of crushing dissent was clearly unworkable.
• As Colonial Secretary crushed with force uprisings in Somalia and Iraq including through indiscriminate bombing and the gassing of civilians (using 'non-lethal' gas, but still essentially potentially deadly and on non-combatants).  He also was totally uninterested in spending money on building civilian infrastructure including hospitals and was primarily responsible for creating Iraq out of a bunch of unrelated Ottoman provinces.  Thanks Winston.
• Wanted to partition China.
• Crossed the floor twice and was generally fairly disloyal to everyone he worked under during his whole political career, even though he was quite intolerant of his own underlings showing disapproval of his own views.
• Sent in the troops on at least three occasions to 'quell' industrial action, including infamously sending the tanks out onto the streets of Glasgow.  Revisionist historians tend to minimise this and make him out to be a social reformer but he was quite open, especially after the Great War, about being prepared to use (and using) the military to quash what he saw as communist subversion.
• Helped propel the Ottoman Empire into an alliance with the Germans by seizing two dreadnoughts they were having built in British shipyards without compensating them or giving them advance notice but seizing them in port by force.  This evidently didn't solely decide which way the Ottomans went in the war but certainly was a factor by exacerbating relations with them at a sensitive time.
• More importantly them dreaming up and championing the Dardanelles Campaign which led to Gallipolli and an utterly pointless and wasteful loss of life in an ill-thought out strategic gamble (not the only time that'll crop up) on what was erroneously thought to be Germany's 'soft underbelly' (ditto).
• Also as First Lord of the Admiralty spent huge amounts turning merchant ships into dummy versions of warships for absolutely no worthwhile return.
• As Chancellor of the Exchequer returned to the gold standard in 1924 completely wrecking the post war economy.  Not solely his decision but he bears ultimate responsibility for it as Chancellor.  Also oversaw a budgetary regime that crippled the poor and industry to benefit the landed elite and the financial sector.  When this led to the General Strike advocated machine-gunning the workers and opined that Mussolini-style fascism might be the way out of said mess.  By 1930 was writing that Britain should abandon universal suffrage and go back to property qualifications for the vote.
• Absolutely opposed Home Rule for India to the extent of being quite keen of Gandhi to die during his fast.  He actually hated Gandhi and any idea of Indians running their own affairs.  Again was determined to preserve the empire at any cost.
• Although lauded with some justification for his work to encourage rearmament in the 30s due to the threat of Hitler Churchill was also at least partially responsible for having imposed swinging cuts to the defence budget as Chancellor in the 20s.
• Whilst warning about the threat of Germany he also continued to laud Mussolini for much of the 30s and had nothing but sympathy for Franco.  He also had nothing to say about Japan and actually thought they should be allowed to occupy Manchuria, so his later posturing as the only man to have forewarned the world about the dangers of fascist militarism is not entirely the whole story.
• Was primarily responsible for our disastrous intervention in Norway in 1940. Another strategic gamble that paid off only for Churchill himself as despite (as First Lord of the Admiralty) being responsible for its conception and execution this episode primarily sank Chamberlain, and hence elevated Churchill to the post of PM.
• Primarily responsible for focusing Anglo-American efforts in the Mediterranean against the Axis' 'soft underbelly' in North Africa and Italy instead of on Germany for most of the middle part of the war, achieving very little, mostly in order to prop up the Empire.  David Reynolds did a decent documentary on the BBC on this a while back, worth a watch: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01ndj09

There's a bunch of other questionable and objectionable stuff he did as well that (because I can't be bothered) I've not mentioned above.  Basically although he was an inspirational figurehead during the war he made many poor decisions and was undoubtedly generally a bit of a bigot with political views most would now find offensive and that many did find offensive at the time.  It would be good if his figure was reassessed more critically these days as for far too long we've had this sacrosanct image of Winston the archetypal indomitable bulldog and wise war leader that wasn't actually that widespread during the conflict itself.  People are far too willing to overlook his misdeeds, misjudgements and the telling fact he was dumped before the end of the war in a historic landslide.

 

[Bring Your Own Socks]

Went to the Churchill War Rooms last year in Whitehall. A few things stuck in my mind. In his bedroom there were maps of Britian on the wall. It went from floor to ceiling. At the floor was the south coast and English Channel. At the top was Cumbria and Northumberland. Apparently we weren't in the war.

Second. The room next door to his was the BBC so that messages to the nation could be transmitted at any time. Hopefully, anyone who thinks the state broadcaster is somehow autonomous from the Government of the day will come to understand they are not, nor ever have been. Or ever will be.

Third. One of the wee gems I spotted was a card explaining how, in the latter years of the war, to divert the Doodlebugs away from the Whitehall campus false information was leaked indicating the Government and senior officials had relocated to addresses in the east end. Falling for the ploy, Gerry redirected the bombs which resulted in the levelling of whole areas full of good old Cockney geezers. 

[paranoid android]

I like it when he says...

"Oh yes!"

[Peppino Impastato]

Churchill called indians 'beasts' who deserved the famine we helped cause and aggressively exacerbated which killed 22 million of them.  Any British officer who took any measure at all to help alleviate the starving of the local populace was immediately demoted and set back to the UK. 

 

 

He was a racist arsehole who hated Scotland.   Funk him.

[Eednud]

He was one of Dundee's MP's after winning a by-election in 1908 as a Liberal party member until losing to Edwin Srymgeour a Scottish Prohibitionist in the 1922 General Election. He actually finished in 4th place with another candidate from his party in third. Don't know if this is true but growing up we were told that he was supposedly not too pleased with this result and made some comments about seeing grass growing over the Caledon Shipyards before he died, He also supposedly fell out with either one of the newspaper publishers, the Courier and The Advertiser hadn't merged in 1922, and that he was never mentioned by name in any of the papers only the position he held until during or some time after World War 2.  

[ICTJohnboy]

4 hours ago, Peppino Impastato said:

He was a racist arsehole who hated Scotland.   Funk him.

 

He wasn't the first and probably won't be the last.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

That article is fairly mild in terms of Churchill being a bit of an ass.  You could make an argument it was for the greater good and all the rest of it.

I'm sure a certain constituency on here won't like it and he did have some good points in terms of the much vaunted 'inspirational leadership' we all hear so much about but all in all not only was Churchill a bit of a tit, to put it mildly, but also not that great a war leader.

For a start he was an utterly unapologetic imperialist (and no, not everyone was at the time) who firmly believed Britain had a right to go in and take over whatever 'uncivilised' nation to which it took a fancy.  He also held racist views that condoned such imperialism and held that the colonised nations were generally inferior to the European colonisers on a fundamental level.  It was true he wanted Britain to be the stereotypical 'big brother', acting in the best interests of those who could not see what their interests were, but he firmly believed in the Empire and acted at all times to try and preserve our dominion over it.

His actual list of dubious positions and unwise decisions is too long to go through in its entirety, but the 'highlights' would be:

• Was initially utterly unable to countenance any form of Home Rule for Ireland and was responsible for sending in the Black and Tans and instituting a policy of harsh repression on the understanding he could quell the movement for independence there through police measures.  Eventually advocated negotiations and partition but only when his initial policy of crushing dissent was clearly unworkable.
• As Colonial Secretary crushed with force uprisings in Somalia and Iraq including through indiscriminate bombing and the gassing of civilians (using 'non-lethal' gas, but still essentially potentially deadly and on non-combatants).  He also was totally uninterested in spending money on building civilian infrastructure including hospitals and was primarily responsible for creating Iraq out of a bunch of unrelated Ottoman provinces.  Thanks Winston.
• Wanted to partition China.
• Crossed the floor twice and was generally fairly disloyal to everyone he worked under during his whole political career, even though he was quite intolerant of his own underlings showing disapproval of his own views.
• Sent in the troops on at least three occasions to 'quell' industrial action, including infamously sending the tanks out onto the streets of Glasgow.  Revisionist historians tend to minimise this and make him out to be a social reformer but he was quite open, especially after the Great War, about being prepared to use (and using) the military to quash what he saw as communist subversion.
• Helped propel the Ottoman Empire into an alliance with the Germans by seizing two dreadnoughts they were having built in British shipyards without compensating them or giving them advance notice but seizing them in port by force.  This evidently didn't solely decide which way the Ottomans went in the war but certainly was a factor by exacerbating relations with them at a sensitive time.
• More importantly them dreaming up and championing the Dardanelles Campaign which led to Gallipolli and an utterly pointless and wasteful loss of life in an ill-thought out strategic gamble (not the only time that'll crop up) on what was erroneously thought to be Germany's 'soft underbelly' (ditto).
• Also as First Lord of the Admiralty spent huge amounts turning merchant ships into dummy versions of warships for absolutely no worthwhile return.
• As Chancellor of the Exchequer returned to the gold standard in 1924 completely wrecking the post war economy.  Not solely his decision but he bears ultimate responsibility for it as Chancellor.  Also oversaw a budgetary regime that crippled the poor and industry to benefit the landed elite and the financial sector.  When this led to the General Strike advocated machine-gunning the workers and opined that Mussolini-style fascism might be the way out of said mess.  By 1930 was writing that Britain should abandon universal suffrage and go back to property qualifications for the vote.
• Absolutely opposed Home Rule for India to the extent of being quite keen of Gandhi to die during his fast.  He actually hated Gandhi and any idea of Indians running their own affairs.  Again was determined to preserve the empire at any cost.
• Although lauded with some justification for his work to encourage rearmament in the 30s due to the threat of Hitler Churchill was also at least partially responsible for having imposed swinging cuts to the defence budget as Chancellor in the 20s.
• Whilst warning about the threat of Germany he also continued to laud Mussolini for much of the 30s and had nothing but sympathy for Franco.  He also had nothing to say about Japan and actually thought they should be allowed to occupy Manchuria, so his later posturing as the only man to have forewarned the world about the dangers of fascist militarism is not entirely the whole story.
• Was primarily responsible for our disastrous intervention in Norway in 1940. Another strategic gamble that paid off only for Churchill himself as despite (as First Lord of the Admiralty) being responsible for its conception and execution this episode primarily sank Chamberlain, and hence elevated Churchill to the post of PM.
• Primarily responsible for focusing Anglo-American efforts in the Mediterranean against the Axis' 'soft underbelly' in North Africa and Italy instead of on Germany for most of the middle part of the war, achieving very little, mostly in order to prop up the Empire.  David Reynolds did a decent documentary on the BBC on this a while back, worth a watch: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01ndj09

There's a bunch of other questionable and objectionable stuff he did as well that (because I can't be bothered) I've not mentioned above.  Basically although he was an inspirational figurehead during the war he made many poor decisions and was undoubtedly generally a bit of a bigot with political views most would now find offensive and that many did find offensive at the time.  It would be good if his figure was reassessed more critically these days as for far too long we've had this sacrosanct image of Winston the archetypal indomitable bulldog and wise war leader that wasn't actually that widespread during the conflict itself.  People are far too willing to overlook his misdeeds, misjudgements and the telling fact he was dumped before the end of the war in a historic landslide.

 

Tony Blair looks quite nice in comparison.

[Loondave1]

Churchill would be raging knowing he's unpopular on a Scottish football forum website i would think.Regardless of his misdemeanours he was the right guy for WW2 and not much else hence his electoral failure after the war.However I'm not really keen on looking at historical stuff through a modern lense and applying current standards.As is often said the past is a foreign country.

[cmontheloknow]

Imagine someone like Corbyn as PM in such times. You'd have to redefine 'appeasement'.

[Jacksgranda]

3 minutes ago, cmontheloknow said:

Imagine someone like Corbyn as PM in such times. You'd have to redefine 'appeasement'. surrender

 

[renton]

5 minutes ago, Loondave1 said:

Churchill would be raging knowing he's unpopular on a Scottish football forum website i would think.Regardless of his misdemeanours he was the right guy for WW2 and not much else hence his electoral failure after the war.However I'm not really keen on looking at historical stuff through a modern lense and applying current standards.As is often said the past is a foreign country.

By contemporary standards he's hardly faultless. His moral fibre was a necessary thing in 1940, but even then he was committed to sending RAF fighter reserves to france in the early Summer, when France was quite clearly beaten - and which would've tipped the Battle of Britain had Marshal Dowding not intervened. He let the Dieppe raid go forward in spite of that absolute paucity of planning in place for that operation. Norway has already been touched on, as well as his penchant for diversionary, far flung operations that went nowhere. He allowed Harris to fight a basically independent bomber war over Germany with no sense of how the whole thing was meant to fit together, with no plan or strategy. He had a huge weakspot in picking commanders - he liked his Generals to be physically brave and imposing, even if they were brainless morons and had a bad habit of picking the wrong guy at the worng time. Indeed, he kept choosing the wrong commander for 8th Army in the desert, all the way to the end - only for a German fighter pilot to rectify his mistake for him.

In terms of WW2 you can laud his spirit of resistance and embodiment of "British values" but his actual conduct of the war, through his joint post as PM/Minister for Defence was actually fairly lacking.

[Cream Cheese]

Churchill was a coward who hid behind his minions. Your typical political leader.

Russia won the war. The US and the British took the credit in the west.

[Loondave1]

Churchill was a coward who hid behind his minions. Your typical political leader.

Russia won the war. The US and the British took the credit in the west.

Hmm seems a bit simplistic..

[Cream Cheese]

Just now, Loondave1 said:

Hmm seems a bit simplistic..

Go and educate yourself then. But avoid books with huge US and UJ flags on the front cover, because you won't find the facts in them.

[Loondave1]

Go and educate yourself then. But avoid books with huge US and UJ flags on the front cover, because you won't find the facts in them.

I detect a chip weighing down heavily on your shoulders.My Grandfather fought in North Africa and im fine with that without getting all judgemental about who won what.You in a few words and a dollop of bad attitude sound like an embittered Nat ?

[Cream Cheese]

Just now, Loondave1 said:

I detect a chip weighing down heavily on your shoulders.My Grandfather fought in North Africa and im fine with that without getting all judgemental about who won what.You in a few words and a dollop of bad attitude sound like an embittered Nat ?

You're blinded by the lies of British patriotism comrade.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bagration

You'd be typing in German right now if it wasn't for the Soviets.

[Loondave1]

You're blinded by the lies of British patriotism comrade.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bagration

You'd be typing in German right now if it wasn't for the Soviets.

Aye ?? That will be why the Germans all speak Russian now then ?? The Russians were pivotal at the end of the war but suggesting the Soviets "won the war" is pretty simplistic stuff.Again by your terminology i suggest an embittered Nat and textbook general ? Enjoying the freedom others died for ?