Long live the Queen...no really

[STEED]

Originally Posted by jimbuna

no sign of handing the throne over to Charles.

I don't think he wants the throne, it will get in the way all that shagging with the wife.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by STEED

I don't think he wants the throne, it will get in the way all that shagging with the wife.

I see his father is today celebrating his 90th.

I do hope he received my card

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Randomizer

Escape of the Goeben - As First Lord he interfered directly in the deployments and actions of the two Admirals on the spot, Adm Milne, CinC Med and RAdm Troubridge SO 1 Cruiser Squadron. Due to confusing, poorly written and untimely orders directly from Churchill, Goeben was allowed to escape to Constantinople without being brought to action. Milne was cashiered (no great loss to the Navy but still...) and Troubridge was court-martialed for interpreting a poorly worded Churchill order regarding engaging superior forces in a manner the Churchill (and the Navy generally) did not like.
See The Ship that Changed the World by Dan van der Vat; and
Superior Force by Geoffery Miller.

According to Richard Hough's The Great War at Sea Troubridge was court-martialed for making his own decision to break off the interception after discussing it with his flag-captain and deciding that his entire squadron would be wiped out without harming Goeben. His actions were contrasted with those of the Kelly brothers who engaged Goeben and Breslau at great risk to their ships and their lives.

Action off the Broad Fourteen's - Churchill directly interfered against the advice of the technical experts in the Admiralty Operations Division and ordered patrols off the Dutch coast using elderly armoured cruisers ill suited to the task in waters where U-Boat were known to operate. This after tasking the escorting destroyers to other duties.
See The Great war at Sea by Richard Hough; and
From Dreadnaught to Scapa Flow Vol II by Arthur Marder

And according to my reading of the events the three cruisers were well escorted, but the destroyers were sent home due to the constantly worsening weather. I have a copy of Hough as well. I hope the misspelling of Dreadnought is yours. If the book has it that way I wouldn't trust it.

Battle of Coronel - Again Churchill's micro-managing assets from the Admiralty and confusing orders placed RAdm Cradock in a position where he felt he had no choice but to fight a greatly superior East Asia Squadron. Amongst these were orders telling Cradock he was being reinforced by HMS Defence followed by new orders to Defence's captain to proceed elsewhere - without informing Cradock! By the time Cradock knew Defence was not joining he was already in the Pacific and committed to a fight, particularly as Troubridge's court-martial was pending.
See Coronel and the Falkland's by Geoffery Bennett, Hough and Marder.[/quote]
I haven't read that one, but I have read the excellent Graf Spee's Raiders, by Keith Yates. Was Churchill aware of Defence's redeployment at the time he sent the message to Craddock, i.e. was he misinformed or did he flat-out lie? I know about Craddock's own decision. How much blame does Churchill truly deserve.

The fleet action off the Dardinelles was Churchill's own creation.

That one I won't argue, as the whole Gallipoli campaign was a disaster which led to his dismissal, so blame was assigned and properly so.

As to the others, yes, you can blame the man in charge, but I don't think it has been shown that any of the failures was actually caused by him directly, or even indirectly.

[Jimbuna]

Nothing wrong with reading references and books etc. then debating them but one point that can never be dismissed is the fact that he looked adversity square in the face and never gave in to it.

When Britain needed a powerful leader he answered the call and was much admired and respected by the population, especially during the dark years of WWII.

Roosevelt and him made a pretty potent pair of adversaries at the beginning of the conflict.

Heaven only knows what might have been the outcome had Chamberlain remained in office longer.

Please don't misunderstand my observations re: Sir Winston are not intended to besmerch his memory. If you believe in the Great Man theory of History, Churchill has every requirement box ticked, some several times over.

However, as a larger than life politician with few peers who shaped the 20th Century as much as he did, his successes were huge but then again so were his failures. There were many of the latter that are shrugged off because of the magnitude of the former but that he neatly avoided taking any responsibility for.

I wrote in an earlier post:

If there is an entity known as "Western Civilization", he is owed a priceless debt as Hitler's most implacable enemy.

I believe that Churchill personified all the strengths and weakness that accompany the very concept of "Western Civilization"; its successes as well as it's failures. When we look at Churchill the man, we must the honour and remember one but never merely dismiss the other.

@ Steve: Yes Dreadnaught was all mine, an advantage of being mildly dyslexic is that sometimes you miss the obvious during the editing process. Also never forget that the years Churchill was First Lord (both terms), nothing, virtually nothing got out to the fleet without his say so.

[August]

The toughest criticisms always come from those who have the advantage of hindsight.

[TarJak]

Originally Posted by August

The toughest criticisms always come from those who have the advantage of hindsight.

Quoted for truth.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Randomizer

@ Steve: Yes Dreadnaught was all mine, an advantage of being mildly dyslexic is that sometimes you miss the obvious during the editing process. Also never forget that the years Churchill was First Lord (both terms), nothing, virtually nothing got out to the fleet without his say so.

I figured it was, and it was a low blow on my part. I apologize. I also realize that along with the good there was certainly bad, and he deserved his sacking if only for Gallipoli. I just like to have all the little duckies in a row, and I feel differently about where the blame should lie for some of the setbacks. In this case I'm not convinced I'm right, but that is my opinion, so debate is a good thing.

Now back to Prince Chuck.

The toughest criticisms always come from those who have the advantage of hindsight.

Yet Churchill had much tougher criticisms throughout his career and along the very same lines at the time concerning the very issues being raised now.

When Britain needed a powerful leader he answered the call and was much admired and respected by the population, especially during the dark years of WWII.

When one of Churchills fiascos finally brought down a tottering government he ended up with the job, he was much admired and respected by some of the population, by others he was not.
On a note of more personal observation, Churchill is a person who manages to elicit a description using what for a English lady of character can only be described as very foul language, the only other time I have heard her use anything like strong language was about Louis Mountbatten.

[AVGWarhawk]

respected by some of the population, by others he was not.

One will find this with any leader no matter the circumstances of the time.