Myths about Churchill: Your Thoughts?

Lord Fairfax

Ad Honorem
Jan 2015
3,422
Changing trains at Terrapin Station...
The problem is they'd had zero jungle training :(
Which is about as much jungle training as the 8th Australian division had, when they inflicted 12 to 1 casualties on the Japanese at Gemas.

The issue with the Indian 28th Indian brigade (and the 44th & 45th Indian) wasn't lack of jungle training, it was that the troops were so inexperienced and poorly equipped for modern warfare that they couldn't cope with aggressive, experienced Japanese troops.

Veteran troops can be given at least basic jungle training in a month or two, but if your troops are still in the midst of learning how to fight, fire a rifle or aim a mortar, you won't be able to jungle train them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Druid
Mar 2019
1,952
Kansas
Which is about as much jungle training as the 8th Australian division had, when they inflicted 12 to 1 casualties on the Japanese at Gemas.
No elements of the 8th Division had been in Malaya since Jan 41. Other elements were deployed to New Guinea, Timor and Darwin through April 41. Originally the division was to deploy to the Middle East, but things change
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,627
Churchill, as head of the Admiralty during World War I, implemented the policy of the hunger blockade of Germany. But, according to everyone's interpretation of international law except Britain's, it was illegal. The blockade was not close to German port but depended on the wide scattering mines, and many of the goods deemed contraband — like food for civilians — had never been so classified before. The policy was controversial at the time. William Jennings Bryan resigned as American Secretary of State over the contrast between Woodrow Wilson’s positions on the Lusitania and the British blockade of Germany.

About 750,000 German civilians eventually succumbed to hunger and diseases caused by malnutrition during the blockade that continues well after the armistice. The effect on those who survived has been seen by some as just as frightful in its own way. One historian of the blockade has concluded: "the victimized youth [of World War I] were to become the most radical adherents of National Socialism." [quoted in Rethinking Churchill in Great Wars & Great Leaders by Ralph Raico who referenced Vincent, Politics of Hunger, and also Peter Loewenberg, "The Psychohistorical Origins of the Nazi Youth Cohort," American Historical Review 76, no. 5 (December 1971]

Raico, who anti-war focus made him clearly hostile towards Churchill’s affinity for war, also touched on another controversial topic – the sinking of the Lusitania.

Whether Churchill actually arranged for the sinking of the Lusitania is hotly debated. [Colin Simpson in The Lusitania, presented the case for Churchill's guilt; while Thomas A. Bailey and Paul B. Ryan, The Lusitania Disaster: An Episode in Modern Warfare and Diplomacy, attempted to exonerates him]
The British had no signed the Hague conventions on Naval war blockades though others had. The british did extened bloackade restirtions and definitions well beyond what had been down before and some neutrals and central powers objected. The US had no such Qualms once it entered the War and pressed for a tighter blockade. But the Germna u boat camapaign, posisin gas, deliberating targeting hospital ships, excuting civilian hostages, shelling of cities. Were the British to be bound by the rules of war but no one else was going to be?

The Germans also failed to manage their food resources and chose armaments over food production.

Allegations that Churhcill was any wayresponsible for the sinking of the Lusitania is tin foil conspiracy theory stuff. Muntions or not she was not a legitimate traget under the rules of war at the time. the Munstion smay have caused the ship to sink switftly in a seconardary explosion, teh the sole direct cause of teh sinking was teh u boat torpedo and the german polciy of targetting all ships, liners, hospital ships neutrals eveyrthing on the sea, Her speed should have been enough, the Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth made many unescorted crossings during ww2 on the same bais.
 
May 2018
880
Michigan
The British had no signed the Hague conventions on Naval war blockades though others had. The british did extened bloackade restirtions and definitions well beyond what had been down before and some neutrals and central powers objected. The US had no such Qualms once it entered the War and pressed for a tighter blockade. But the Germna u boat camapaign, posisin gas, deliberating targeting hospital ships, excuting civilian hostages, shelling of cities. Were the British to be bound by the rules of war but no one else was going to be?

The Germans also failed to manage their food resources and chose armaments over food production.

Allegations that Churhcill was any wayresponsible for the sinking of the Lusitania is tin foil conspiracy theory stuff. Muntions or not she was not a legitimate traget under the rules of war at the time. the Munstion smay have caused the ship to sink switftly in a seconardary explosion, teh the sole direct cause of teh sinking was teh u boat torpedo and the german polciy of targetting all ships, liners, hospital ships neutrals eveyrthing on the sea, Her speed should have been enough, the Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth made many unescorted crossings during ww2 on the same bais.
And all the other nations of Europe only said that a blockade was "against the rules of war" was because only GB was in a position to take such action. The idea that Britain should give up its best strategic weapon just because Kaiser "military wannabe" Wilhelm pouts and says "unfair"? I'm reminded of the Futurama episode where "Mom" has to get her dumbass evil sons out of a quandary because some Korean girls beat them at Xbox. I suppose Britain should object to Stormtroopers and Fokker Airplanes because they are "unfair."

None of the Central Powers, especially German and Turkey, are really in a position to cry foul about anyone else's alleged war crimes.

Another anti-Churchill conspiracy theory? For real? Did FDR deliberately allow Pearl Harbor, the attack in the Phillipenese, and all the other attacks launched by Japan on U.S. assets at that time? A grassy knoll, a message from a U.S. sub in the Pacific, and aviation fuel that won't melt steel walk into a bar...
 
Last edited:

Kevinmeath

Ad Honoris
May 2011
14,062
Navan, Ireland
When did I say any of this?

The British had no signed the Hague conventions on Naval war blockades though others had. The british did extened bloackade restirtions and definitions well beyond what had been down before and some neutrals and central powers objected. The US had no such Qualms once it entered the War and pressed for a tighter blockade. But the Germna u boat camapaign, posisin gas, deliberating targeting hospital ships, excuting civilian hostages, shelling of cities. Were the British to be bound by the rules of war but no one else was going to be?

The Germans also failed to manage their food resources and chose armaments over food production.

Allegations that Churhcill was any wayresponsible for the sinking of the Lusitania is tin foil conspiracy theory stuff. Muntions or not she was not a legitimate traget under the rules of war at the time. the Munstion smay have caused the ship to sink switftly in a seconardary explosion, teh the sole direct cause of teh sinking was teh u boat torpedo and the german polciy of targetting all ships, liners, hospital ships neutrals eveyrthing on the sea, Her speed should have been enough, the Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth made many unescorted crossings during ww2 on the same bais.
 
Apr 2014
404
Istanbul Turkey
Churchill was an old style Victorian imperialist until last decades of his life and combined with his extreme nature and alcoholism made him to act or say controversial manner from time to time. Dardannelles Campaign during World War I , his decision to interfare Russian Civil War , Chanak Crisis again at same place of Dardanelles in 1922 , his poor record of Chancellor of Excheqer during 1920'ies and taking Britain out of Gold Standart , his Ten Year Rule (basically assuming Britain will fight no major wars for ten years and allocating defence budget accordingly-that is why British Army performed so poorly during initiial years of World War II ,and to cover that he and British press created Rommel thre bogeyman and his German Aryan supermen myth during and after the war) , using force to dispense striking coal miners in 1920'ies , his stubborn Opposition to India Bill and Gandhi's Non Violent resistance to British Raj , his wartime strategic meddling and mistakes in British Empire strategy that caused a few severe defeats etc..are all recorded

That said during 1934-1945 he was the exactly the man that liberal western democratic era needed to survive. His Cassandra like warnings were disregarded because of his past record but this time when Third Reich began to expand and swallow its neighbors he was right. Despite his wartime strategic mistakes and gaffes from time to time , his grasp of geopolitical strategy , wartime grand diplomacy among Big Three (USA , USSR and British Empire) and other smaller Allies , goverments in exile , British dominions and neutrals was first class. He realised the necessity of reelpolitik and even embraced Soviet Union temporarily (a state he reviled and disliked and made no denial of that) for wartime purposes and got Allied strategic priporties straight , defeating Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. After the war his realisation of immensely stronger Soviet Union in military sense and making nexcessary warnings and preperations for Cold War made West survive without any massive war again and rode the crest of Eastern Bloc threat and Communism. When he lost the elections in 1945 he accepted that still upholding values of democracy. Despite all his character flaws and mistakes his record of 1934-1945

The accusations after his death are mostly about things he did not say or taken outr of context or things he said but did not implement : He advocated to use tear gas against Iraq tribes in rebellion at Iraq during 1920 (the honor of utilisation of lethal military grade chemicals against insurrection or civilian targets first time belongs to Benito Mussolini and Fascist Italy in Ethiophia in 1935-36 and Japanese in 1930'ies) Just because he said he hates Indians does not mean he caused Bengal Famine-local Raj admin and local Raja rulers and wartime rice supply cut off from Burma + cyclone season caused it.
 

Kevinmeath

Ad Honoris
May 2011
14,062
Navan, Ireland
"I hate Indians, they are beastly people with beastly Religion."
-said the guy who was directly responsible for death of millions of Bengalis during his PMship..
Wasn't that comment made in frustration in learning that Ghandi was encouraging resistance despite impending Japanese invasion?

So a comment directed towards Indian Nationalists.

However why is the measure of a person how much they do or do not like India?

As for the famine

"............Summary


There was a food availability problem, though its extent cannot be resolved with any accuracy. That there was a deficit may be inferred from informed commentary at the time, from the failure of the food drives and from the high incidence of forced land sales by starving peasants. In normal times Bengal might have been resilient enough to cope with the shortfall, but in 1943, given military requirements and war-related disruption to trade and communications, the consequences were disastrous.

Neither price movements nor the outcome of the food drives of the summer of 1943 support the case for excessive hoarding on a massive scale. Markets did ‘fail’ in another sense, however: the disruption of transport facilities led to huge increases in the price of rice in the east of the province. The problem in Bengal in 1943 was the failure of the imperial power to make good a harvest shortfall that would have been manageable in peacetime. HI


Cormac Ó Gráda is Professor of Economics at University College Dublin.


Demographic crisis: Revisiting the Bengal famine of 1943–4

he was just another Hitler .
A comment that shows you know and understand little about Churchill and Hitler.
 

Kevinmeath

Ad Honoris
May 2011
14,062
Navan, Ireland
As you can see from this thread I am not a fan of the guy, but a Hitler he never was.
Churchill had many faults but one of his undoubted positives is that he opposed both Hitler and Stalin (until necessity dictated otherwise-- when the hypocrisy of praising Stalin after he had been so opposed to himwas pointed out he said something like "If Hitler invaded Hell I'd find a kind word to say about the Devil" or something like that.)