Winston S Churchill

[Gibbo]

Churchill joined a Yeomanry regiment, the Oxfordshire Hussars, when he left the Regular Army & continued to attend its annual camp even when a Cabinet Minister. His rank in 1914 was Major so a battalion command was a promotion of only one grade. Sir John French originally wanted to give him a brigade but was persuaded by Asquith not to do so.

Quite right, Gibbo - I failed to notice that. Even so, his actual army experience wouldn`t normally have been seen as suitable for battalion command, would you think? Phil B

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think that that's a fair point. He was entitled by rank to be a Lt-Colonel but lacked the command experience to be a battalion commander.

[Desmond7]

In his autobiography .. 'Having Been A Soldier' .. Lt. Col. Mitchell confirms he was not in theatre long enough to qualify for the medal referred to.

[BeppoSapone]

In his autobiography .. 'Having Been A Soldier' .. Lt. Col. Mitchell confirms he was not in theatre long enough to qualify for the medal referred to.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thats where I read it Des. Although it was over 20 years ago I believe that he also says that he would have got the 'Italy Star' if he had been officially wounded.

Do you have the book to hand?

Just wondered how Winston Churchill qualified for his "Stars"?

[Desmond7]

Dunno about Winnie ..

Mitch was slightly wounded, went to dressing station, didn't bother getting checked in ... tried to find out about medal later. Told he wasn't listed. That's how I remember it.

[bluedog]

Pals

Being Australian, I have no great love at all for Churchill with his suggestion

and handling of the Dardanelles Campaign and the WW2 "Impregnable

Fortress of Singapore" and regarding the statement which Prime Minister

Curtin overuled with Churchill wanting to dispatch Australian Troops who

were returning from North Africa to meet the Japanese threat to Australia,

Churchill is reported as saying "Let Australia be captured, we will retake it

later,England must be saved at all costs".

However, having said that, I believe that after Dunkirk, he was what Britain

needed and He certainly gave "Blood, Sweat and Tears"

Peter

[AndyHollinger]

When I started this, I realized he was an interesting person ... but the fact we can argue about this all these years later makes him VERY interesting.

Great Man and Great faults ... I see his constant searching for a soft underbelly (to coin a phrase) to emulate a great victory like his great ancestor to actually lead him to lots of bad decisions. Even if the Dardenelles/Golipolli were successful ... so what? The British couldn't have supplied Russia back into the war and Turkey's defeat wouldn't have raised a hair on Germany's arm. The same, I believe is true for Italy and Greece (the invasion) in WWII. To NOT fight the Somme, he looked everywhere. There's a great line from the Marshall Library collection where George tells Winston ... Not ONE American will die in Rhodes for your plan!"

In WWII his work without a Min of Defense was what? Trying not to have a 2nd in Command so there would be no LG to his Asquith?

WWI saw him doing things and being there ... I believe he thought himself the Great Catalyst ... and therefore we have the Fleet Ready and a wonderful new strategy and great Commander ... but then Beatty and Fisher and all sorts of messes ... you can't have one without the other.

I think his perception of the Empire was actually pre-Victorian ... he reguard for White Empire troops a smooch higher than Brown Empire Troops. He is a man who dedicated his life to Liberty and Freedom and yet wouldn't even see India as needing either! He is a man who, along with his words needs a great deal of Historical Understanding.

More than anything this string has told me he's still alive ... I believe Americans really LONG for his words and his courage ... We seem so little in comparison to him, his lineage and his verbiage ... his action, adventure rich life ... Britons see him as he was as a politician (much like the US view of Clinton) ... and Colonials see him as a guy who didn't even flinch when it came to their blood ...

So he is a man of many facets ... and many talents ... but he was at the Center ... that can never be doubted ...

[bernardmcilwaine]

people either like him or dislike him,i personally think he was a great man,hes the only person that i can listen to when hes making one of his speeches and not fall asleep,like him or not,you will never find a better orator,and when the chips are down,a great moral booster,one thing thats been overlooked about him and that is,he was feared of nothing,it was only a direct order from the king that stopped him from landing with the 1st wave,on D day,some of you are going on about him as if he was only a politician,churchill wore many hats in his lifetime,journalist,soldier,sailor,citizen etc,everything he did,he did for britain and the empire,whatever medals and honours he got,he more than earned,my old mum summed him up to a tee,she said he was the right man at the right time for a job that everyone else was to **** scared of,no other man past or present could have carried it off like him,and as for him being third party behind roosevelt and stalin churchill wouldnt take a back seat to anyone,not even god so why would he take one to two mere mortals,bernard

[BeppoSapone]

I think his perception of the Empire was actually pre-Victorian ... he reguard for White Empire troops a smooch higher than Brown Empire Troops.  He is a man who dedicated his life to Liberty and Freedom and yet wouldn't even see India as needing either!  He is a man who, along with his words needs a great deal of Historical Understanding.

So he is a man of many facets ... and many talents ... but he was at the Center ... that can never be doubted ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Churchill's racism has always surprised me.

According to what I read he was not 100% white himself, having Native American blood. I don't care if he was part Zulu myself, its just that his attitude seems strange under the circumstances.

The "Red Indian" blood was inherited from Jennie Jerome, Winston Churchill’s American mother, Jennie Jerome, was part Iroquois, through her maternal grandmother.

Always liked his "English Speaking Peoples" idea myself, but I don't know if it had legs.

[BeppoSapone]

...he was feared of nothing,it was only a direct order from the king that stopped him from landing with the 1st wave,on D day

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would have paid good money to see that Bernard

[salesie]

Salesie

In answer to your question. I can't be certain that my conclusions 'don't have feet of clay', and neither can anyone else be certain of theirs.

My real point about history is that there aint no such animal - if you take history to mean what actually happened. The best we can do is to read a broad selection of the 'propaganda of the victors'/'lies told by thieves' and make up our own minds. Of course, this can all be overturned by new evidence. Some documents can be released under the 75 year rule, an author can write a new book using evidence that has not been widely known before, and so on. Remember the German who wrote a book in the 1960s that overturned the usually held view on WW1 and its origins/cause?

The danger, of course, is only reading one sort of lie - establishment lies or anti-establishment lies - and forming an opinion based on them alone.

My point about asking what your sources had to say about those particular incidents was to see if they are mentioned at all? Were they glossed over or hushed up? It is the books you have read, and those that you haven't, that have formed your view of Churchill. I think that a book that makes no mention of his actions around the time of the fall of Singapore is badly flawed.

I think that your problem here, if problem it be, is that you have become involved in a discussion with people that know some of the nitty-gritty about Churchill. I am by no means the only one, and have learned from this discussion. For example, I didn't know that Churchill was so unpopular with his men that they had plans to kill him in an attack.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I couteously allow you the last word, Beppo, and then you're at it again - sneering, and allowing logic to take a back seat in your post.

You open with a perfectly rational definition of history and then go on to openly contradict it. The nitty-gritty you speak of is known to almost everyone - you don't have a monopoly on knowledge about Churchill's bad points. I know that he veered from plonker to genius, know that he was a charmer one minute and a boor the next, know that he got it wrong as well as right. But I also know that if it hadn't been for that highly flawed individual, we would not be having a free and open discussion on this forum right now, not without the Obergruppenfuher's permission that is. I recognise that some things may just have a greater benefit to our lives than others - thank God for his flawed genius.

But then you finish with your most illogical point of all after your rational sermon about history. You say; "I didn't know that some of his men planned to kill him in an attack." By your own definition, you still don't know. All you have to go on is unsupported anecdotal evidence in an internet forum. Once again, you form a conclusion by blatently ignoring your own words.

But even if the poster of this so-called evidence bails you out and comes up with a viable reference, try finding out in what context the piece was written? Do you think that all COs were, and are, universally loved by all their men? Do you believe that Churchill's men were the only ones who thought like this about their CO? Are you convinced that all COs who fell were caught by enemy fire? If this was written in a diary, what were the reasons for it? Had the writer been punished by Churchill? Did the man who wrote it believe that Churchill's gung-ho attitude would get him killed more easily? Did Churchill's enemies at senior level give the men reason to believe they would be picked for all the crap jobs" Was it a flight of fantasy on the writer's part? Was the writer and his unknown cohorts simply a small band of bolshis?.........etc.etc.etc.

You see, Beppo, in reality you've learnt nothing (except that you wish to hear). Perhaps another read of your own definition, and a bit of applied logic on your part, would allow me to leave you with the last word, but how can I when you persist in posting like you do?

Cheers - salesie.

[Max]

I was under the impression that this thread was entitled "Winston S Churchill, Thougts about WWI performance", please stick to the subject instaed of drifting into personal attack or the thread gets pulled.

Andy

[BeppoSapone]

I was under the impression that this thread was entitled "Winston S Churchill, Thougts about WWI performance", please stick to the subject instaed of drifting into personal attack or the thread gets pulled.

Andy

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Check Mate Max

[CROONAERT]

All you have to go on is unsupported anecdotal evidence in an internet forum. ...

...But even if the poster of this so-called evidence bails you out and comes up with a viable reference, try finding out in what context the piece was written? Do you think that all COs were, and are, universally loved by all their men? Do you believe that Churchill's men were the only ones who thought like this about their CO? Are you convinced that all COs who fell were caught by enemy fire? If this was written in a diary, what were the reasons for it? Had the writer been punished by Churchill? Did the man who wrote it believe that Churchill's gung-ho attitude would get him killed more easily? Did Churchill's enemies at senior level give the men reason to believe they would be picked for all the crap jobs" Was it a flight of fantasy on the writer's part? Was the writer and his unknown cohorts simply a small band of bolshis?.........etc.etc.etc.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If it's really all that important (and personally, I don't think it is), I'll hunt out the author of this piece. It's not a diary and was a war memoir published in the 1920's. As I said, the author was a sergeant (at the time of Churchill's command) and later went on to recieve the DCM and further promotion. A way of finding the author would be, I suppose, find a listing of all the Sgts under Churchill's command during his time at the front and cross reference the names with the DCM listings , then search out if any ever wrote a book after the war.

The main reason for this man's hatred was the fact that Churchill introduced a policy of "fire" shortly after his arrival, in an area where a "live and let live" policy was in operation by both sides. This man, and others, held Churchill directly responsible for quite a few needless deaths of their comrades and quite a few believed he would be the death of them also. They basically saw him as a reckless "gong-chaser" who was out of touch with the reality of the modern war and ,therefore , threat to their very existance.

No, I don't believe it to be a "flight of fantasy" - I know of people who have felt like this, personally, and have had an experience, myself, in which I can associate with them. Also, what would be gained about admitting murderous thoughts to the public at large about a person who was yet to become the public icon that he did?

They were definately not a "band of Bolshies" either. I can't see the author's war service becoming so distinguished if he were!

Dave.

[salesie]

If it's really all that important (and personally, I don't think it is), I'll hunt out the author of this piece. It's not a diary and was a war memoir published in the 1920's. As I said, the author was a sergeant (at the time of Churchill's command) and later went on to recieve the DCM and further promotion. A way of finding the author would be, I suppose, find a listing of all the Sgts under Churchill's command during his time at the front and cross reference the names with the DCM listings , then search out if any ever wrote a book after the war.

The main reason for this man's hatred was the fact that Churchill introduced a policy of "fire" shortly after his arrival, in an area where a "live and let live" policy was in operation by both sides. This man, and others, held Churchill directly responsible for quite a few needless deaths of their comrades and quite a few believed he would be the death of them also. They basically saw him as a reckless "gong-chaser" who was out of touch with the reality of the modern war and ,therefore , threat to their very existance.

No, I don't believe it to be a "flight of fantasy" - I know of people who have felt like this, personally, and have had an experience, myself, in which I can associate with them. Also, what would be gained about admitting murderous thoughts to the public at large about a person who was yet to become the public icon that he did?

They were definately not a "band of Bolshies" either. I can't see the author's war service becoming so distinguished if he were!

Dave.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My point, Dave, is that unsupported anecdotal evidence, as your original post was, should in no way be used to form a conclusion, but be seen as a springboard to raise further questions. As your new post shows, a little depth has been added to the context of this sergeant's utterances, and already a slightly different picture appears to be emerging.

But, as you seem to have gathered, the post is still unsupported and anecdotal; it still raises more questions than answers. More questions for those who truly wish to overcome the "lies of thieves" that is.

Cheers - salesie.

[chrismac]

"As for the coalition with the liberals in 1951, not so, Chrismac; Tory majority of 36 seats, although they did poll slightly fewer votes than Labour (Labour managed a 6 seat majority in the 1950 election)"

I'm sorry but this will not do Salesie. The Tory majority was not 36 seats - it was 7 seats. And that was over Labour not overall as the term is usually understood. You've also misrepresented what I said as I never claimed it was the Liberals but the National Liberals a seperate and different party.

Neither do I think you can say that they polled "slightly fewer votes than Labour " when the actual number of 1.28m million was more than the National Liberals achieved their 19 votes with.

The Tories although being the largest party would not been able to sustain a government without an overall majority therefore it was only with the National LIberals that they were able to do form the government.

Pedantic as this might seem it is important that we stick to accuracy and do not dismiss other's posts so sweepingly as I believe we all share a common interest in WW1 and much of what we do is to 'put the record straight' as far as what is known about WW1.

So perhaps we could apply that same rigorous examination when we are on our own particular hobby horse as we do to our shared hobby.

1951 Election Results

Labour - 13,948,883 : 295 seats

Conservative - 12,660,061 : 302 seats

National Liberal - 1,058,138 : 19 seats

Liberal - 730,546 : 6 seats

Independent Nat - 92,787 : 2 seats

Irish Labour - 33,174 : 1 seats

[salesie]

"As for the coalition with the liberals in 1951, not so, Chrismac; Tory majority of 36 seats, although they did poll slightly fewer votes than Labour (Labour managed a 6 seat majority in the 1950 election)"

I'm sorry but this will not do Salesie. The Tory majority was not 36 seats - it was 7 seats. And that was over Labour not overall as the term is usually understood.  You've also misrepresented what I said as I never claimed it was the Liberals but the National Liberals a seperate and different party.

Neither do I think you can say that they polled "slightly fewer votes than Labour " when the actual number of 1.28m million was more than the National Liberals achieved their 19 votes with.

The Tories although being the largest party would not been able to sustain a government without an overall majority therefore it was only with the National LIberals that they were able to do form the government.

Pedantic as this might seem it is important that we stick to accuracy and do not dismiss other's posts so sweepingly as I believe we all share a common interest in WW1 and much of what we do is to 'put the record straight' as far as what is known about WW1.

So perhaps we could apply that same rigorous examination when we are on our own particular hobby horse as we do to our shared hobby.

1951 Election Results

Labour    -                          13,948,883 :            295 seats 

Conservative  -    12,660,061 :                302 seats   

National Liberal                        -  1,058,138 :                                19 seats

Liberal              -                  730,546 :                    6 seats

Independent Nat          -  92,787 :                              2 seats 

Irish Labour                    -          33,174 :                    1 seats

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

OK, let's be pedantic & accurate. I quote:

Full text avaiable here: http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessi...ional%20Liberal

"At the same time there were calls for the Liberal Nationals to fully unify with the Conservatives, with whom they had operated closely with for many years to the point that few political commentators could tell the difference, and in 1947 the two parties formally merged. Some MPs and candidates continued to use the National Liberal party name for elections until the 1960s. Until 1966 they continued to claim a room at the Westminster Parliament for their own use."

A rose (or thorn) by any other name?

Cheers - salesie.

[Guest]

If people want to discuss Churchill's WWII performance, or the 1945/1950/1951 British election results, this is not the forum and this is not the topic.

Does anyone thing he took the right position in arguing for the purely naval attempt to force the Dardanelles, or that he was wrong to resign as First Lord when it went belly up? Does anyone think that Jackie Fisher was wrong to resign over Churchill's policy?

[AndyHollinger]

Churchill was not a party man and not a tremendous fan of LG. WSC had to leave the cabinet due to the Dardenelles disaster - frankly because it had been his big-deal, I know better than any of you, idea. The Gov't was listing side to side by this time anyway and he was nobody's protege and nobody's mentor ...

I think the interesting thing is he went into the line ... remember he'd seen action and been in the thick of it before ... it was a way, I believe, to cleanse his honor and unlike so many staff types, he went for the mud ...

Besides, it gave him a couple of new hats!

[BeppoSapone]

Does anyone thing he took the right position in arguing for the purely naval attempt to force the Dardanelles, or that he was wrong to resign as First Lord when it went belly up? Does anyone think that Jackie Fisher was wrong to resign over Churchill's policy?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Don't forget Antwerp.

[salesie]

Don't forget Antwerp. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Antwerp 1914, what an almighty cock-up that was. Certainly not one of Churchill's finest hours. I quote:

"Here I am, locked away with a bunch of sailors, who, in the infinite wisdom of some silly b****r at the war office, were sent to Antwerp as soldiers in a forlorn and bloody stupid attempt to prevent the city’s capture by one the most fearsome armies in the world."

No text reference this time because it's from my second KOYLI novel, not finished so not published yet. But maybe, just maybe, it will make Beppo re-appraise his toady imagine of me?

Cheers - salesie.

[BeppoSapone]

Antwerp 1914, what an almighty cock-up that was. Certainly not one of Churchill's finest hours. I quote:

"Here I am, locked away with a bunch of sailors, who, in the infinite wisdom of some silly b****r at the war office, were sent to Antwerp as soldiers in a forlorn and bloody stupid attempt to prevent the city’s capture by one the most fearsome armies in the world."

No text reference this time because it's from my second KOYLI novel, not finished so not published yet. But maybe, just maybe, it will make Beppo re-appraise his toady imagine of me?

Cheers - salesie.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tell you what Salesie. Take your novel up as far as 1945, and include something on Churchill's order to our troops to become involved in the Greek Civil War, and I will totally revise my opinion of you.

"A demonstration in Syntagma Square was fired upon from the police station by police and collaborators. Twenty-five were killed and nearly one hundred and fifty wounded. Extremists on both sides began to seek out their enemies and settle old scores incurred during the Occupation. At first the partisans did not fire on British soldiers, but, Churchill ordered General Scobie to treat Athens “as a captured city where a local rebellion is in progress.” Artillery shelled, and Spitfires strafed, the working class suburbs of Athens."

Source: http://www.harrys-athens-greece-guide.com/...s-civil-war.asp

[BeppoSapone]

Those poor, downtrodden and under valued communists who never did a dirty deed to anyone in their lives - how could anyone treat them like that?

Cheers - salesie.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Salesie

I take it that you never actually read the link then?

[chrismac]

Sorry Salesie but you've been a bit economical with the truth.

There was discussion with the National Liberals before they agreed to support the Tories in 1951 after the election ergo the Tories formed the government in 1951 only as a result of the support of the National LIberals as originally stated.

Please do not insult my intelligence by pulling up hurriedly researched stuff from Wikipedia (of all places). This is an area I am well briefed upon and your post smacks of someone leaping in feet first. Perhaps you have another agenda other than accuracy so any continuation in this thread seems pretty pointless.

I make no apologies for following Lord Fisher's views regarding orders as posted by Angie 99 as I felt I couldn't allow this misrepresentation to go unchallenged.

Thanks for reading, that's me done.

[Gibbo]

I think that Churchill was correct to resign over the Dardanelles. It wasn't only his fault but he argued for it in cabinet, it was a naval & he was the political head of the RN. As I understand it, in those days cabinet ministers were much quicker to take responsibility for mistakes & to resign than they are now. I don't want to start a witch hunt against various current politicians, I'm just pointing out that standards were different then from now.

I agree with Andy that Churchill wasn't a party man. I get the impression that he was only in a political party because you had to be in one in order to get to the top in government & that he didn't much care if he was a member of the Conservative or the Liberal parties. However, I thought that he WAS a fan of Lloyd George. It was certainly LG who brought him back into the cabinet.

[BeppoSapone]

Sorry Salesie but you've been a bit economical with the truth.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Also, the 'goal posts had moved'.

The choice put to the British people in 1945 was Churchill or the Welfare State.

By the time of the next election it was the Welfare State and Labour or the Welfare State and Churchill with or without the National Liberals.

Hardly the same choice as in 1945!