Winston S Churchill

[Essexboy68]

Hi Folks

WSC was surely one of the greatest ever Britons, up there with Nelson & Wellington, although, like all great men he had his faults.

His performance in WW1 was typical of the man, & he displayed his courage on more than one occasion, both morally & psychically.

Yes, he was defeated at the 1945 election, but remember he was returned to power at the next one, showing that the 1945 Labour government appears not to have been as popular with the electorate once they showed their true colours (remember, the Attlee government gave the Americans the right to use jet technology for non military purposes, thus losing this country Billions that could have been demanded for product licences)

WSC has been judged kindly by history, but we must remember he was just a man & had faults, just like the rest of us. History has also shown him to have been visionary over both the Nazi & Soviet threats, even when he was ridiculed for his views.

Cheers

Mark

[chrismac]

Unfortunately Essexboy68's stuff about the elections doesn't quite stand up.

Churchill was not returned at the next election after 1945. The next election was in held in 1950 when Labour were re-elected. In fact Labour increased their vote from 11.967m (1945) to 13.266m (1950).

Likewise in the following election in 1951, the one that Churchill 'won' , saw Labour increase their vote yet again. This time to 13.948m - still polling more votes than the Conservatives.

The Conservatives were only able to form a government by forming an alliance with the National Liberals (hardly a ringing endorsement of Churchill or any supposed disatisfaction of Labour's 'true colours' I would suggest).

Unfortunately much of what is taught and is believed owes an awful lot to myth.

Why we need one dimentional heroes might be a better question to ask and what part in history has been played by those all too willing to indentify themselves with such 'heroes'.

For the real heroes, the ones whose lives and actions are not publically recorded, we need to at least represent history with a bit more depth and understanding than a 1930's Boy's Own annual.

[BeppoSapone]

Unfortunately Essexboy68's stuff about the elections doesn't quite stand up.

Churchill was not returned at the next election after 1945. The next election was in held in 1950 when Labour were re-elected. In fact Labour increased their vote from 11.967m (1945) to 13.266m (1950).

Likewise in the following election in 1951, the one that Churchill  'won' , saw  Labour increase their vote yet again. This time to 13.948m - still polling more votes than the Conservatives.

The Conservatives were only able to form a government by forming an alliance with the National Liberals (hardly a ringing endorsement of Churchill or any supposed disatisfaction of Labour's 'true colours' I would suggest).

Unfortunately much of what is taught and is believed owes an awful lot to myth.

Why we need one dimentional heroes might be a better question to ask and what part in history has been played by those all too willing to indentify themselves with such 'heroes'.

For the real heroes, the ones whose lives and actions are not publically recorded, we need to at least represent history with a bit more depth and understanding than a 1930's Boy's Own annual.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Now now ChrisMac

Leave the 'plucky little Brits' to their Soviet-style cult of the personality revolving around 'the man with the big cigar'.

Give it another 50 years and "History" will be telling us the same sort of guff about Thatcher. Just wait until the people that were actually there are dead and safely out of the way...

You should have heard the WW2 'sharp end' veterans laying into Churchill back in the 1970s!

It was the British people, and their 'Blood, toil, tears and sweat' that won WW2.

[Guest Paul Leane]

I agree - a great man.  The Gallipoli campaign was a disaster, but one which might have succeeded, had the War Office and Admiralty had belief in it, and had we had a commander who was more able to 'push' than to allow his subordinates to dictate affairs.

As for his stewardship of the Admiralty, one only has to consider the feeling when he returned to the post on the outbreak of WW2 "Winston's back" to believe that the Navy held him in esteem.

We could do with him in these times......

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There was no need to deny being a Colonial when wound up by your mate Evans of the Broke.

As Winston tried to obliterate the Colonials by sending them to Gallipoli, following up in WW2 with Greece & Crete, and trying to divert the recalled Australians to Burma, not too many Colonials share your views.

[BeppoSapone]

As Winston tried to obliterate the Colonials by sending them to Gallipoli, following up in WW2 with Greece & Crete, and trying to divert the recalled Australians to Burma, not too many Colonials share your views.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not just the 'Colonials'.

I used to work with a member of the Norfolk Regiment who ended up on the Burma Railway because Churchill diverted the 18th (East Anglian) Division to Singapore.

"Arrived too bloody late, off the boat and straight into the cage, no proper kit, that useless f------ clown Churchill" etc etc etc

[salesie]

Always amazed me how, in these so-called debates online, it doesn't take long for the sneering to start. Beppo, why mention Thatcher? Then you slip in Soviet-style cults, followed by unsourced anecdotal snippets from disgruntled individuals? Not so much Boys Own but Socialist Worker?

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).

One dimensional? You're having a laugh, I've heard Churchill described in many ways but never thus; if nothing else, he had more faces than Big Ben.

Cheers - salesie.

[Steven Broomfield]

I'm not going to rise to the bait about Colonials!

On the subject of the election in '45, my dad - a Tory through and through - voted Labour in '45. He spent the rest of his life regretting it, mind.

Oh, go on - I'll raise to that bait, then.

I don't think Gallipoli was a master plan to obliterate the colonials, any more than Crete was in WW2 - they just happened to be there, that's all. And by the same token, I also worked with veterans of the 18th Division, and I don't ever remember them feeling bitter to Chirchill personally - they were victims of years of complacency and neglect. We could hardly expect the Chiefs of Staff (or Churchill) not to send reinforcements to a threatened Front, if such reinforcements were available.

[Guest]

I note that nobody has anything of substance to say about Churchill in WWI as per the topic title.

Does his alleged greatness in later life blind everyone to his earlier career, or is it simply that people don't have much of a clue about his role in WWI?

Nobody has come back to dispute my comments on his responsibility for the Dardanelles.

[BeppoSapone]

Always amazed me how, in these so-called debates online, it doesn't take long for the sneering to start. Beppo, why mention Thatcher? Then you slip in Soviet-style cults, followed by unsourced anecdotal snippets from disgruntled individuals? Not so much Boys Own but Socialist Worker?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Salesie

If you know in advance what these online debates turn into, why complain when they do?

I have pointed out that Churchill was discussed here before you joined. If you want 'sneering' see that thread.

My mention of Thatcher is fair comment. The 'right' would not dare tell us what a paragon of virtue she was, much safer to stick to Churchill. People who know the truth of it are mostly dead and we have only history, which some have described as 'lies told by thieves'.

I would say that an individual who spent three and a half years as a Japanese POW, and saw his mates starved and worked to death, had every right to be 'disgruntled'. He was also sick, as a result of his experiences, a lot of the time I knew him. This was in the 1970s! I have this mans full details, including his army number. However, as I don't work for the 'Daily Mail' I have respected his privacy. He could still be alive.

Do none of your Churchill books mention the 18th Infantry Division landing at Singapore? The fate of the 'Prince of Wales' and the 'Repulse'? etc etc etc

[salesie]

I don't complain, Beppo, just make a statement of fact.

What on earth the fate of 18th infantry division and those two warships has to do with the context of this debate is beyond me. Unless, of course, they're thrown in as red-herrings?

On a bitterly cold December morning in 1977, a year after being discharged from the colours on medical grounds, I spent a not so pleasant half hour or so trying my best to vainly breath life back into a workmate who had collapsed. I'd worked with him for about a year; he'd been captured at Singapore and a guest of the sons of Nippon. He'd worked on the railways before the war and, having never regained his health after his treatment, had been given a "soft job" as a messroom bobby.

This man never blamed Churcill for his misfortune, I repeat never. He saved his wrath for the real culprits; the BLOODY JAPS. Also, he wasn't the only ex-jap prisoner I've met over the years and each and every one blamed the japs - and Percival sometimes - why wouldn't they?

However, I have heard criticism of Churchil from some, I'd be amazed if I hadn't. But come on, Beppo, do you think you're the only one that's been around a bit? Do you think you're the only one that recognises Churchill's faults? Think you know something we don't?

Cheers - salesie.

[Essexboy68]

Sorry Folks!

I forgot the 1950 election, which inded was won by Labour, but they were unable to hold onto power................

Please forgive my slight oversight.

Angie, I did comment on WSC's conduct in WW1. Basically, he oversaw the debacle that was the Dardanelles & Gallipoli campaigns (indeed he seems to have been a bit obsessed by the area, as he attempted to persuade his commanders to undertake large scale operations there in WW2), & quite rightly, resigned when the extent of it's failure was shown. He then rejoined the army, seeing action on the Western front, & was decorated as a result of his actions. As i said, more briefly previously, this shows the courage & character of the man, IMHO.

Thanks

Mark

[Gibbo]

I note that nobody has anything of substance to say about Churchill in WWI as per the topic title.

Does his alleged greatness in later life blind everyone to his earlier career, or is it simply that people don't have much of a clue about his role in WWI?

Nobody has come back to dispute my comments on his responsibility for the Dardanelles.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Positives of Churchill's role in WW1:

He ensured that the RN was ready for war.

He encouraged the development of the tank.

He did a competent job as Minister of Munitions, a role that he didn't seem suited to given his bad relations with the trade unions.

When out of office he was prepared to risk his life in the trenches. I know that some think that his subsequent return to Westminster should count agianst him but how many in the same position would have gone in the first place. Also, his battalion (6th Royal Scots Fusiliers) was merged with another (7th RSF) due to heavy casualties & command was given to the more senior CO of the 7th. He could have sort another command but can't be accused of leaving his unit in the lurch as it was ceasing to exist.

Negatives:

He seemed to regard himself as an operational rather than political head of the RN & interfered too much with operational details.

The Dardanelles. He was the man who argued for a purely naval operation so must take the blame when it went wrong.

I must confess to not knowing enough detail of is time as Minister of Munitions to decide for sure if the balance is positive or negative but the size of the error at the Dardanelles makes me lean towards the negative. This view isn't strrong enough to alter my positive view of his overall career.

[BeppoSapone]

I don't complain, Beppo, just make a statement of fact.

What on earth the fate of 18th infantry division and those two warships has to do with the context of this debate is beyond me. Unless, of course, they're thrown in as red-herrings?

On a bitterly cold December morning in 1977, a year after being discharged from the colours on medical grounds, I spent a not so pleasant half hour or so trying my best to vainly breath life back into a workmate who had collapsed. I'd worked with him for about a year; he'd been captured at Singapore and a guest of the sons of Nippon. He'd worked on the railways before the war and, having never regained his health after his treatment, had been given a "soft job" as a messroom bobby.

This man never blamed Churcill for his misfortune, I repeat never. He saved his wrath for the real culprits; the BLOODY JAPS. Also, he wasn't the only ex-jap prisoner I've met over the years and each and every one blamed the japs - and Percival sometimes - why wouldn't they?

However, I have heard criticism of Churchil from some, I'd be amazed if I hadn't. But come on, Beppo, do you think you're the only one that's been around a bit? Do you think you're the only one that recognises Churchill's faults? Think you know something we don't?

Cheers - salesie.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Salesie

In answer to your question "What on earth the fate of 18th infantry division and those two warships has to do with the context of this debate". A lot of the people involved in those incidents blame Churchill for them. The argument is that he gave orders for these things to happen, and he should have left the actual running of the war to the Generals and Admirals. I just wondered what the books that you read had to say about those incidents?

Did I say that the man I mentioned did not also blame the Japanese for the way they treated POWs? What I said was that he, and many others, blamed Churchill for 'dropping them in it' in the first place.

Of course, people are people. Some POWs blamed Churchill, some blamed Percival. A lot of the Australians blamed the high ranking Australian officer, whose name escapes me at present, who 'regrouped' in Australia/ 'ran away and left us'. Your friends took another view. This probably says rather more about the way that you and I choose our friends than anything else.

As for being "the only one that recognises Churchill's faults" I would say that I am certainly not the only one. Simply read the rest of this thread, and the earlier one as well.

I have said that Churchill, for all his faults, allowed the British people to save the world in 1940/1941. However, I am also saying that he had 'feet of clay'.

Are you the only one who thinks he was perfect?

[BeppoSapone]

The Australian whose name I could not remember was Gordon Bennett.

http://www.awm.gov.au/people/110.asp

[salesie]

What I'm saying, Beppo, is that I understand what you're saying, I know precisely where you're coming from; I just don't agree with your methods or your conclusions.

Now, this phenomenon is not unusual, most peoples' opinions are formed from very different points of view, and, as an aspiring writer, I welcome diversity in all its forms; otherwise what would we write about? However, what I do not like are your attempts at sneering instead of forming rational and relevant counter arguments; those tactics are counter-productive. For example, you openly state in your last post that I believe Churchill to be perfect, yet, on several occasions, I've stated that is the last thing he was. English is your first language I assume, so there is no logical explanation that I can see, apart from an attempt to divert the debate, as to why you reached this conclusion.

Has it ever occured to you that in a debate, two opposing positions are needed to give that debate a semblance of interest? Why are you so afraid, why do you fear opposing views, why this paranoia about Churchill, why the political undertones? If your research is so solid, why can't it stand up to rational questioning and counter argument without bringing out churlish asides?

Cheers - salesie.

[PhilB]

He then rejoined the army, seeing action on the Western front, & was decorated as a result of his actions.

Mark

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Churchill served 4 years in the 4 Hussars, 1895-9. When he elected to serve in France he was given a battalion and rank of Lt Colonel. Sounds like the kind of political military appointment more common in the US Civil War. I can`t find any evidence of a WW1 gallantry decoration though? A list of his medals is below:- Phil B

The Order of Precedence

1. Knight Companion of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, UK, appointed 24Apr53, installed 14Jun54.

2. Order of Merit, UK, appointed 1Jan46, installed 8Jan46.

3. Order of the Companions of Honour, UK, appointed 19Oct22, invested 16Jun23.

4. India Medal, 1895 (clasp: Punjab Frontier 1897-98), UK, authorized 10Dec 1898.

5. Queen's Sudan Medal 1896-98, UK, authorized 27Mar 1899.

6. Queen's South Africa Medal 1899-1902 (clasps: Diamond Hill, Johannesburg, Relief of Ladysmith, Orange Free State, Tugela Heights, Cape Colony), UK, authorized 15Jul 1901.

7. 1914-1915 Star, UK, authorized 10Oct19.

8. British War Medal 1914-1918, UK, authorized 13Oct19.

9. Victory Medal, UK, authorized 4Jun20.

10. 1939-1945 Star, UK, authorized 9Oct45.

11. Africa Star, UK, authorized 9Oct45.

12. Italy Star, UK, authorized 2Aug45.

13. France and Germany Star, UK, authorized 9Oct45.

14. Defence Medal 1939-45, UK, authorized 9Oct45.

15. War Medal 1939-45, UK, authorized 11Dec46.

16. King George V Coronation Medal, UK, 1911.

17. King George V Silver Jubilee Medal, UK, 1935.

18. King George VI Coronation Medal, UK, 1937.

19. Queen Elizabeth II Coronation Medal, UK, 1953.

20. Territorial Decoration (King George V), UK, 31Oct24.

21. Cross of the Order of Military Merit, Red Ribbon, First Class, Spain, granted 6Dec 1895, ratified 25Jan 1896.

22. Grand Cordon of the Order of Leopold with Palm, Belgium, 15Nov45.

23. Knight Grand Cross, Order of the Lion of the Netherlands, Holland, May 1946.

24. Grand Cross, Order of the Oaken Crown, Luxembourg, 14Jul46.

25. Grand Cross with Chain, Royal Norwegian Order of St. Olav, Norway, 11May48.

26. Order of the Elephant, Denmark, 9Oct50.

27. Order of Liberation, France, awarded 6Nov58.

28. Most Refulgent Order of the Star of Nepal, First Class, Nepal, 29Jun61.

29. Grand Sash of the High Order of Sayyid Mohammed bin Ali el Senoussi, Kingdom of Libya, awarded 14Apr62.

30. Army Distinguished Service Medal, United States, authorized 10May19, awarded 16Jul19.

31. War Cross with Palm, Belgium, 15Nov45.

32. Military Medal 1940-45, Luxembourg, 14Jul46.

33. Military Medal, France, 8May47.

34. War Cross with palm, France, 8May47.

35. Cuban Campaign Medal, 1895-98, Spain, awarded 1914.

36. Khedive's Sudan Medal (clasp: Khartoum), Egypt, 1899.

37. King Christian X's Liberty Medal, Denmark, 10Sep46.

[BeppoSapone]

What I'm saying, Beppo, is that I understand what you're saying, I know precisely where you're coming from; I just don't agree with your methods or your conclusions.

Now, this phenomenon is not unusual, most peoples' opinions are formed from very different points of view, and, as an aspiring writer, I welcome diversity in all its forms; otherwise what would we write about? However, what I do not like are your attempts at sneering instead of forming rational and relevant counter arguments; those tactics are counter-productive. For example, you openly state in your last post that I believe Churchill to be perfect, yet, on several occasions, I've stated that is the last thing he was. English is your first language I assume, so there is no logical explanation that I can see, apart from an attempt to divert the debate, as to why you reached this conclusion.

Has it ever occured to you that in a debate, two opposing positions are needed to give that debate a semblance of interest? Why are you so afraid, why do you fear opposing views, why this paranoia about Churchill, why the political undertones? If your research is so solid, why can't it stand up to rational questioning and counter argument without bringing out churlish asides?

Cheers - salesie.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Salesie

I am saying the same thing about you. I understand why you feel as you do about Churchill, but suggest that you are avoiding anything that shows him in a bad light.

As I have repeatedly stated in this thread, and in the earlier one, that I think that what Churchill enabled the British people to do in 1940 and 1941 was wonderful. If you think that that should make me think that the sun shone out of Churchill's earhole, you are wrong. He was a bloody politician not a saint.

I have no 'paranoia' about Churchill. The man is not that important to me. You make it sound as if I am staying up nights worrying about this person. To claim that my comments are 'sneering' is your right. Just as it is mine to think that you are being a toady. I just wonder how on earth you feel that we can discuss Churchill at all without 'political undertones'?

As for my 'research' being 'solid' I don't claim to know everything, and use this board in order to learn. Twice now I have asked you what the books you read say about Churchill and the fate of the 18th Division. The 'Prince of Wales' and the 'Repulse'. I am still none the wiser. Instead of an answer we now seem to have a smoke screen, complete with dialectics - Thesis,Anti-Thesis,Synthesis.

Are you sure it is not you that reads "Socialist Worker"?

[Desmond7]

Kneejerk reaction ... aside from his performance in WW2?

NO time for the man .. but thankfully he had qualities of obstinacy and political 'nous' which were needed in a particular period.

That's just my latest opinion. It fluctuates the more I read.

[salesie]

Salesie

I am saying the same thing about you. I understand why you feel as you do about Churchill, but suggest that you are avoiding anything that shows him in a bad light.

As I have repeatedly stated in this thread, and in the earlier one, that I think that what Churchill enabled the British people to do in 1940 and 1941 was wonderful. If you think that that should make me think that the sun shone out of Churchill's earhole, you are wrong. He was a bloody politician not a saint.

I have no 'paranoia' about Churchill. The man is not that important to me. You make it sound as if I am staying up nights worrying about this person. To claim that my comments are 'sneering' is your right. Just as it is mine to think that you are being a toady. I just wonder how on earth you feel that we can discuss Churchill at all without 'political undertones'?

As for my 'research' being 'solid' I don't claim to know everything, and use this board in order to learn. Twice now I have asked you what the books you read say about Churchill and the fate of the 18th Division. The 'Prince of Wales' and the 'Repulse'. I am still none the wiser. Instead of an answer we now seem to have a smoke screen, complete with dialectics - Thesis,Anti-Thesis,Synthesis.

Are you sure it is not you that reads "Socialist Worker"?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tonight's image of bedtime. Me, the working class lad from the backstreets of Rotherham, reading the socialist worker (getting to know my enemy). You, Beppo, with........................?

One last thought, and perhaps another example of your subtle, but certain, sneering and churlish asides? Maybe even a little hypocrisy on your part?

In one of your earlier posts, you intimate, as a counter point, that history is not a reliable source in the context of this thread, (perhaps even all historical debate?) with your, "lies told by thieves," quote. A point of logic; if this quote is a truism about history then why your obsession in asking me what books I've read about 18th Inf & the two warships? Surely, if "lies told by thieves" is an accurate representation then the books read by either of us become irrelevant, don't they? Or, do you just wish to satisfy yourself that my personal reading tastes are "polluted by lies" and that yours aren't? I hope you see my point about hypocrisy?

So, given this illogicality (and hint of hypocrisy) in your posts, how can you be certain that your own conclusions don't have feet of clay?

By the way, there are methods to counter "lies of thieves" if one is so inclined, but I won't go into detail as this nonsense has gone on long enough. I rest my case - go on, you can have the last word.

Cheers - salesie.

[Essexboy68]

Hello

Will have to check up on this, but was convinced he had been awarded the DSO whilst serving on the Western front, prior to his return to Westminster. I seem to remember reading that he promised his beloved Clemmie he would win such an award before he came home.

However, I am always willing to be corrected.

Cheers

Mark

[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.

The source for this is Churchill by Roy Jenkins, which makes no mention of Churchill receiving a gallantry award. I have heard the story about him promisiong Clemmie that he'd win one but I don't think that he did so.

[PhilB]

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

[BeppoSapone]

Tonight's image of bedtime. Me, the working class lad from the backstreets of Rotherham, reading the socialist worker (getting to know my enemy). You, Beppo, with........................?

One last thought, and perhaps another example of your subtle, but certain, sneering and churlish asides? Maybe even a little hypocrisy on your part?

In one of your earlier posts, you intimate, as a counter point, that history is not a reliable source in the context of this thread, (perhaps even all historical debate?) with your, "lies told by thieves," quote. A point of logic; if this quote is a truism about history then why your obsession in asking me what books I've read about 18th Inf & the two warships? Surely, if "lies told by thieves" is an accurate representation then the books read by either of us become irrelevant, don't they? Or, do you just wish to satisfy yourself that my personal reading tastes are "polluted by lies" and that yours aren't? I hope you see my point about hypocrisy?

So, given this illogicality (and hint of hypocrisy) in your posts, how can you be certain that your own conclusions don't have feet of clay?

By the way, there are methods to counter "lies of thieves" if one is so inclined, but I won't go into detail as this nonsense has gone on long enough. I rest my case - go on, you can have the last word.

Cheers - salesie.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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.

[BeppoSapone]

The source for this is Churchill by Roy Jenkins, which makes no mention of Churchill receiving a gallantry award. I have heard the story about him promisiong Clemmie that he'd win one but I don't think that he did so.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What were the rules for awarding WW2 "Stars" and just how did Churchill qualify?

IIRC "Mad Mitch" - the man who was involved in the campaign to "Save the Argylls" fought in Italy in the last days of WW2. However, he was not on active service long enough to qualify for the "Italy Star".

On one occasion he was slightly wounded, but carried on with his job and did not report for medical attention. If he had gone to the RAP, or wherever, he would have got the medal as a result of being wounded.

[Gibbo]

What were the rules for awarding WW2 "Stars" and just how did Churchill qualify?

IIRC "Mad Mitch" - the man who was involved in the campaign to "Save the Argylls" fought in Italy in the last days of WW2. However, he was not on active service long enough to qualify for the "Italy Star".

On one occasion he was slightly wounded, but carried on with his job and did not report for medical attention. If he had gone to the RAP, or wherever, he would have got the medal as a result of being wounded.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

According to the Burma Star Association's web site 1 day's service in an operational theatre was enough. Assuming that the criteria was the same for all the Stars the question is why Mad Mitch didn't qualify. I think that you had to apply for WW2 campaign medals rather than receiving them automatically as was the case in WW1 so perhaps he didn't apply? That theory doesn't explain your point about his wound though. The remaining question on Churchill's entitlement is whether he was strictly a serving member of the armed forces during WW2.

Burma Star